Let's get back to The And Theory, Mr Cameron

Since becoming leader David Cameron has championed one progressive cause after another...

• Social justice;
• Climate change;
• More Tory parliamentary candidates who are women, disabled or are from ethnic minority groups;
• Civil liberties in his 'Come And Join Us LibDems' speech;
• An 'open-hearted' policy towards asylum seekers;
• Devolution to Scotland;
• Redistribution;
• Global poverty...

And today the new Tory leader turns to equal opportunities for women.  Speaking on the thirtieth anniversary of the Equal Pay Act Mr Cameron issued the following statement:

“After thirty years of the Equal Pay Act, women’s pay is still nearly a fifth lower than men’s – and for women working part-time, the pay gap is around 40%.  This persistent injustice makes child poverty worse, prevents women in our society from reaching their full potential, and contributes to poverty in old age for many women who have worked hard all their lives.
 
“It is totally unacceptable in a modern, civilised society for there to be a pay gap between men and women doing equivalent work.  It is morally wrong, quite apart from the practical problems it creates.  There has been far too much complacency over this issue: the battle for equal pay still has to be won.
 
“One of the most powerful weapons in the battle for equal pay is transparency.  If all employers were to be more open about what they pay their employees, there would be fewer hiding places for discrimination – whether intended or accidental.
 
“That’s why we are today releasing a note that reviews the issue and sets out the case for transparency, with employers playing a leading role. I am delighted that Francis Maude is going to consider ways of how best to address this issue in his ongoing review of the Conservative Party’s organisation.
 
“We’re all in this together: we will never tackle the scandal of unequal pay by leaving it to legislation and regulation.  Employers can show leadership, and we as a society can change our cultural attitudes to pay by being much more open about this crucial issue that affects so many individuals and families.”

This approach is winning rave reviews amongst Britain's new establishment and is undoubtedly contributing to the opinion poll leads that the Tories are starting to enjoy.

Mr Cameron has yet to give much attention to more traditional Tory issues, however - like the tax burden, early prison release programmes (the danger of which was shown up by the Monckton case), localism and family values.  A leader in The Telegraph calls on Mr Cameron to remain faithful to his EPP pledge after a growing number of Old Europeans on the Tory benches have organised to torpedo it.

It is unfortunate that Mr Cameron's very necessary and correct commitment to progressive or justice causes is not being seen to be anchored in the And Theory Of Conservatism.  The And Theory (which he used throughout his leadership bid) can act as an important discipline on the Tory party - anchoring modernisers in traditional Tory beliefs and encouraging core vote Tories into broader, more progressive policy areas.   The danger of not consistently linking Euroscepticism to global poverty relief, for example, or the empowerment of the poor with targeted tax relief is that the media establishment will cry foul when (hopefully) the party does give these issues fair emphasis in the future.

Mr Cameron needs to make it clear that he is a 'total conservative'.  A conservative who believes in lower taxes, Euroscepticism and a tough approach to crime as well as in fighting global poverty and saving the environment.  Much of the media do not understand that these sets of belief are perfectly compatible but Mr Cameron has not yet given a big speech which explains that they are.  That speech - and a supportive strategy - needs to come soon.

In the meantime it is left to other groups to champion 'core vote' concerns.  The excellent Taxpayers' Alliance receives coverage in this morning's Mail, Express and Sun for its report on government non-jobs.  The report written by Peter Cuthbertson is welcomed in a Sun leader.  Andrew Green of Migration Watch UK was on Today this morning, pointing out failures in Labour's immigration policies.

The Taxpayers' Alliance and Migration Watch are rare examples of effective campaigning groups that could loosely be described as small 'c' conservative or right-of-centre.   The American conservative infrastructure is many times better organised and more powerful.  It can defeat the Republican Party when it betrays its values as President Bush appeared to do with his aborted nomination of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court.  Britain's conservative infrastructure is currently weak and it must become much stronger.  It must become stronger in two complementary ways:

1. It must help David Cameron to embed progressive causes like poverty relief within the Conservative Party.  Groups like the Centre for Social Justice and New Ground are examples here.
2. It must also develop more effective groups that campaign for the more traditional conservative beliefs - like small government, decentralisation and family values.

Comments

[Selsdon Man]

You don't get it, Ed! Abandoning core vote policies is the modernisers' Clause4. They are big government, Bushite neo-conservatives. Gove, Vaizey and Boles have signed up to the neo-con movement by joining the Henry Jackson Society. So has Robert Halfron. Our esteemed editor must recognise that neo-conservatism is incompatible with his beloved "And Theory".

[PD James]

Migration Watch is "effective"? A group of little-Englanders who want to keep people out? Hardly! And I think I would edge them further than "right of centre". Just because Associated Newspapers like them doesn't make them right. (insert irony here)

[James Hellyer]

Selsdon appears to be quite correct. Almost every statement from the Cameron camp - between soundbites - flags them as big government interventionists.

[James Hellyer]

"Migration Watch is "effective"? A group of little-Englanders who want to keep people out?"

I think you're confusing not liking the message with the messenger being ineffective. Migrationwatch effectively communicate their message through the media, often speaking on Today for example. During the election campaign it was their work that led to Labour spokesmen being grilled over the number of illegals in the country after Labour had claimed an estimate was impossible.

[Peter Franklin]

With some trail blazing exceptions under IDS, the Conservative Party has spent the last eight years emphasising "traditional Tory issues."

DC hasn't been in charge for eight weeks and already there are complaints about too many "progressive" policies. Maybe once we're all heartily sick of the new tune, the message will have got through to the non-political public.

As it happens, DC's leadership hasn't been devoid of "traditional Tory issues". In particular, and unlike his supposedly more righwing predecessors, he's actually getting us out of the federalist European People's Party. Meanwhile his flakiness on drugs classification has been ditched.

Just one more thought. You provide a list of progressive policies -- social justice, environmentalism etc. I don't regard these causes as progressive, but as authentically conservative.

[James Hellyer]

With some trail blazing exceptions under IDS, the Conservative Party has spent the last eight years emphasising "traditional Tory issues."

I think some people have very strange ideas about what Hague and Howard did for most of their leadership. The former was inconsistent and never had a clear message (not even one that his Shadow Chancellor appeared to support), while the latter offered New Labour with added Matrons and deportations. It's hardly a case study in Conservative ideas and arguing them with conviction.

Just one more thought. You provide a list of progressive policies -- social justice, environmentalism etc. I don't regard these causes as progressive, but as authentically conservative.

An issue like caring for the environment is Conservative. Wanting to do so through Kyoto style targets isn't, in my opinion.

[Sean Fear]

“After thirty years of the Equal Pay Act, women’s pay is still nearly a fifth lower than men’s – and for women working part-time, the pay gap is around 40"

If, after 30 years of equal pay legislation, differences persist, that would suggest that those differences are rooted in the career choices that men and women make.

[Sean Fear]

Selsdon Man, it certainly seems unlikely that any of the three parties will be championing economic liberalism at the next election.

What they forget is that it's increasingly easy for businesses to move abroad.

[Peter Franklin]

"An issue like caring for the environment is Conservative. Wanting to do so through Kyoto style targets isn't, in my opinion."

Trouble is that when rightwingers talk about the environment it is only to criticise the approach taken by others.

If you've any examples that contradict my point I'd like to see them. And, no, Mr Ed, the content-free Asia-Pacific pact does not count.

[Derek]

Surely in the private sector, pay depends on the employer, rather than the actual job? There is no reason, for example, why a shelf-stacker at Tesco should be paid the same as a shelf-stacker at Asda. I find it very difficult to believe the accuracy of any nation-wide statistics. I doubt that anyone really gives them a second thought, apart from the media and some politicians that is.

Thank goodness for organisations like the Taxpayers Alliance and MigrationWatch. They do an invaluable job by pointing out the things the government try to hide.

[Deckchair of despair]

There was some analysis of the "pay differential" figures somewhere (I've forgotten where, I'm afraid - it might have been the Adam Smith Institute) which revealed that the figures are not entirely accurate - comparing part-time women with full-time men etc. There certainly are differences, but they are not really as large as the published figures (which DC appears to be relying on) suggest.

[Sean Fear]

David Cameron has mixed up overall pay differentials with different rates of pay for doing the same job.

In general terms, there aren't particularly big differences in rates of pay between men and women, where they do the same job.

Big differences in overall pay are down to different career choices. Many women leave the labour market to bring up children, for example. Even the Equal Opporunities Commission admits that that accounts for 50-75% of the overall pay gap between men and women.

[Richard Allen]

I'm sorry Ed but I have to agree with Selsdon Man. Like many other members you just don't get it. Calling on Cameron to be a 'total conservative' is a waste of breath. He has said himself that he wants to build a liberal and progressive alternative to New Labour.

[James Hellyer]

"Trouble is that when rightwingers talk about the environment it is only to criticise the approach taken by others."

And this justifies adopting the wrongheaded approach advocated by others how exactly?

[Michael McGowan]

Thank you, Sean, for yet more common sense. There are no doubt instances of women being discriminated against when it comes to pay. No doubt there are examples in the opposite direction too....but we hear less about those. However, your point about DC confusing overall pay differentials with different pay rates for the same job is spot on. He was never going to let the facts get in the way of a good soundbite.

[James Hellyer]

Big differences in overall pay are down to different career choices. Many women leave the labour market to bring up children, for example. Even the Equal Opporunities Commission admits that that accounts for 50-75% of the overall pay gap between men and women.

Exactly. Even if the hypothetical man and woman were doing the same job, by the time a woman has taken maternity leave, or a couple of years off, the man will have moved a couple of points up the pay spine even if they are still doing the same job.

[James Hellyer]

"He was never going to let the facts get in the way of a good soundbite."

But Michael, we're all in this together.

Oh, sorry. You said a *good* soundbite.

[Michael McGowan]

James, why is it that some Conservatives have so little imagination that they can only ever define the words "liberal" and "progressive" in terms blessed by the "Guardian". I am liberal and progressive. That is precisely why I have never voted Labour: Jurassic, Old or New.

[Frank Young]

I'm in agreement here with Sean. This is an issue which used to annoy me at university, where members of the Labour club would constantly bang on about this issue.

I used to make exactly the same point Sean has just made.

However....

It’s very difficult not to look like the misogynist on this issue if you disagree too vehemently with the left, who will delight in making Tories look bigoted. We need to tread very carefully and be aware of how we come across as much as how right we are.

[James Maskell]

So Francis Maude is doing a full review of the organisation!

Will he be publishing a report for us to read a la the 21st Century Party consultation document? Will the Party itself get a say in how it will operate in the future? As I write this, my flying pig squadron is putting on its parachuting gear to the tune of the Dambusters.

[Michael McGowan]

The thing you have to do though, Frank, is to constantly play the left at their own game of caricature......not run up the white flag which is what too many "One Nation" Tories do. There is nothing misogynist about pointing out that a woman should not be paid more for the same job than a man just because she is a woman. There is also endless scope for characterising the left as illiberal reactionary bigots who want to substitute a politically-correct caste system, enforced by the criminal law, for mainstream liberal values.

[Selsdon Man]

Ed has to recognise that the neo-cons are former leftists. Richard Perle, one of the leading lights of the neo-con movement, is part of the Henry Jackson Society. Jackson was a Democrat and Perle remains a registered Democrat.

The neo-cons Liberals who promote an aggressive foreign policy. They are NOT free marketeers or small government Conservatives. Irving Kristol promotes the welfare state. Look at Bush spending record - up 35% in the first term alone -higher than even Lyndon B Johnson.

If you want small government and lower taxes, you have to fight to the neo-cons' big government agenda that is now infecting our Conservative Party.

[Richard Allen]

"James, why is it that some Conservatives have so little imagination that they can only ever define the words "liberal" and "progressive" in terms blessed by the "Guardian"."

Actually I readily accept that the words "liberal" and "progressive" can be defined in a very different way to how the left leaning media do. However I don't think that Cameron's description of "liberal" or "progressive" is that far from the lefts description of them.

[Selsdon Man]

"Selsdon Man, it certainly seems unlikely that any of the three parties will be championing economic liberalism at the next election."

Ironically, the Liberal Democrats might, especially under the leadership of the Orange Bookers. That would be a fruitful strategy as they have more chance of taking seats from the Conservatives than Labour.

[Editor]

Peter Franklin: "DC hasn't been in charge for eight weeks and already there are complaints about too many "progressive" policies."

Just for absolute clarity I don't mind the progressive policies (especially on social justice and global poverty). I just think that there needs to be balance. The And Theory is a discipline that helps provide that balance. Our friends in the media always (falsely) present the Tory choice as between modernisation and core vote messages. We need to offer both and The And Theory shows how. I accept the 'progressive' themes may need more attention given the way that they have been neglected but letters to The Telegraph and comments on this blog show that traditional conservatives are getting restless (with some justification). The economy needs core Tory beliefs on tax and the war on crime needs zero tolerance policing etc. The danger is that if we don't carefully blend all sides of conservatism from now on the media will portray us as see-sawing when DC (hopefully) does talk more about the tax burden and our failure to imprison serious/ repeat offenders.

Selsdon Man: "Abandoning core vote policies is the modernisers' Clause4. They are big government, Bushite neo-conservatives. Gove, Vaizey and Boles have signed up to the neo-con movement by joining the Henry Jackson Society."

I'm not sure using the term neocon helps much here, SM. I think the Cameron agenda is still to be developed. You're jumping the gun to assume it's going to be big government or echo Bush. I hope we can learn lessons from Bush's mistakes... I would highlight Bush's failure to control spending and the early flirting with protectionism (those steel tariffs for the swing state of West Virginia). I'd like more spending on defence (perhaps that's what you mean by neoconservatism?) but real restraint on welfare, for example.

[Michael McGowan]

Editor, you ought to point out that it is not just "traditional conservatives" who have serious misgivings about Cameron. It is those of us who don't vote Tory and who want him to offer an economically and socially liberal and progressive alternative to Labour, not a bad photocopy of its failed and illiberal policies.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

I think it is important that we don't mistake a change in tone and emphasis for an abandonment of everything Conservative. It is telling that the majority of critical voices on here (although not all) had all-but-condemned the Cameron leadership as a failure before he had even opened his mouth.

IDS has said that the initial perception of a leader is hard to shift - hence Cameron's choice of topics as listed above. The hard stuff can come later - the important thing now is to establish David Cameron and the Conservative Party as a likeable, trustworthy, moderate Prime Minister and Government in waiting.

There is a long way to go yet, but so far this is working - look at the polls, look at the media coverage, look at the increase in membership across the board.

The "and" will come, Mr Editor, but Cameron has rightly recognised that there are a few brand and perception demons to slay first.

[Sean Fear]

Those of us who did not vote for David Cameron, Ian, are unlikely to have had our concerns allayed over the past few weeks.

The problem is that once you start talking the language of social democracy, it's very hard to avoid advocating the policies of social democracy.

[Kevin Davis]

I agree with the Editor on this.

I am personally pro progressive policies but for them to be authentically Conservative they need to be linked and balanced against what until now has been seen as core vote or core values.

An example could be (although I suspect that it might not be) that we get out of the EPP because it will allows us to better campaign for trade justice and a reduction in the EU state.

or

We are campaigning and working for Social Justice because it will lead to less welfare dependency, lower public spending and therefore lower taxes.

or

We want reduce the impact of climate change not just to save the planet but because actually those who are most impacted by the costs of climate change will be the poor and those countries in the under developed world.

Reducing the impact of climate change = lower dependency on state subsidy to pay fuel costs (look at the cost of the winter fuel allowance) = lower Government spending = lower taxes.

Editor's "and" theory is a good compass for the party to follow and I agree we must be wary of announcements that appear to move us away from not just changing what people think of us but also convincing them we have the moral compass to implement them.

[Ted]

Sean
I agree that non DC voters will have concerns - and as one who voted for DC fully aware that I was voting for a radical change and for language and policies that I might find difficult to swallow - I find I share the concerns.

BUT (is there a BUT theory as well as an AND one?) the first 100 days must be about two things; changing perception of the party from losers to winners and secondly blunting Labour's attack. We have three to four years to develop and sell our policies but no time again for first impressions (and those are what matter)

I listened to Hazel Blears yesterday morning and you could see the thrust of Labours response was to be DC was involved in ERM fiasco, wrote the manifesto etc. but this doesn't work when he's so obviously seeking new ground, dropping policies - it's making Labour all look like Ms Armstrong cackling on the front bench.

I watched DCs first PMQs again yesterday and how well he blunted Labours plans - and his well worked line "you were the future once" is quoted in many end of year reviews.

As you've said before its the polls at end May that will deliver the verdict on his first few months - and if he can carry the party through to gains in the local elections and establish the image (perhaps reality) of the reasonable, listening party then we will be established again as a real opposition party, as winners.

[Frank Young]

I think we need to exercise some patience here; there is a strong negative perception of the Tory party amongst floating voters who we desperately need to attract in order to form the next government.

By sending out a clear compassionate message, setting a caring and generous tone to our rhetoric we can start to attract voters to the party who have either left us in the past or never voted for us before.

For some traditionalist or hard liners this may be difficult to stomach and may seem counter- intuitive to their "real" conservatism but surely the means should justify the end here. Once we have attracted sufficient votes and form a government there will be ample opportunity to reduce tax, fund pro-marriage organisations, and take a more euro-phobic approach to our EU partners.

We must work hard, together to form a modern and compassionate party which appeals not only to us but to our neighbour also. No one will ever be completely happy with everything that a party will do in government but if we wish to see our party in power we must work through the necessary changes.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Agree entirely with Ted and Frank, good posts both.

[James Hellyer]

"I think it is important that we don't mistake a change in tone and emphasis for an abandonment of everything Conservative."

No, we're seeing the abandonment of any commitments to letting people keep more of what they earn (tax cuts), the abadonment of any policies that may have led to controlled immigration, the abandonment of commitments to structural reforms that would stop people who can't afford to go private being stuck with failing public services, as the abandonement of something Conservative.

[Sean Fear]

That is correct, James.

One can believe that Cameron is attempting to mislead the electorate, and will actually govern as a Conservative in office, or one can pay him the compliment of assuming that he means what he says.

[Richard]

What I find to be most absurd is this talk of altering Conservative immigration policy. At the last election the immigration issue was the only one on which the Tories had a lead over Labour in the polls. Other opinion polls have shown that between 70 and 80% of the population want restrictions on immigration. Putting immigration at the forefront of the election campaign may not have been a good strategy but the policies themselves were not unpopular.

[Sean Fear]

We also had a lead on law and order, but certainly, the lead on immigration was very big.

[Richard Allen]

Immigration is an area where we must get the balance right. Yes we have to be careful about the language we use and yes we have to be wary of placing too much emphasis on this issue but to abandon policies that command widespread support would be a big mistake. Whether some like it or not immigration is a huge issue for many right wing minded voters and they will not blindly vote for us if we fail to address this issue in a robust way. A weak tory policy on immigration will send many into the arms of UKIP and the BNP.

[Michael Tombs]

As a 'traditional' Tory I find that each successive announcement by David Cameron makes me a little more uneasy. I have just read the report of his comments about the alleged gender-gap in pay. To be quite honest, if this story hadn't named the speaker I would have assumed that the comments had been made by a spokesman for either the Labour party, or a left-wing think-tank..

I am sure that many others in the Conservative Party share my concerns. I fully accept that he needs to spend time re-burnishing the tarnished Tory image but, unless he is prepared to pay the price of losing support on the right to gain ground in the centre, he also needs to offer some reassurance to existing Conservative members and supporters that they have not been forgotten. In attempting to build a centre-right movement he needs to carry with him both the centre and the right. He cannot afford to neglect either side of the equation.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

In attempting to build a centre-right movement he needs to carry with him both the centre and the right. He cannot afford to neglect either side of the equation.

I agree with you, but if he carries the right before the centre, then the centre will never come back to us. If we are to win the next General Election it has to be this way around.

[James Hellyer]

That's rubbish, Iain. The way to sell centre right ideas and policies is to actually make the effort to sell their positives to the electorate, not to perform the cynical bait-and-switch excerise you're talking about.

[John Hustings]

Yes and I dislike all this talk about "changing cultural attitudes". How exactly is this to be done?

It sounds like social engineering to me. Trying to tinker with society to make out that men and women exactly the same. This sort of thing should not be the priority of a Conservative government. The notion that "equality" is the principle good that society should be working towards I consider to be the *most* pernicious doctrine at work today. It should be fought tooth and nail, not submitted to.

Once again, Cameron is trying his hardest to talk as unconservative as possible.

[Peter Franklin]

Mr Ed: "Just for absolute clarity I don't mind the progressive policies (especially on social justice and global poverty). I just think that there needs to be balance."

Yes indeed. Restoring the balance is just what DC is doing at the moment.

Sean Fear: "The problem is that once you start talking the language of social democracy, it's very hard to avoid advocating the policies of social democracy."

Is fairness the language of social democracy? I've always considered myself a conservative and the f-word is in my dictionary. Why must we surrender social justice to the socialists? For the sake of social justice it is essential that we do not.

[Peter Franklin]

Me: "Trouble is that when rightwingers talk about the environment it is only to criticise the approach taken by others."

James Hellyer: "And this justifies adopting the wrongheaded approach advocated by others how exactly?"

Well it doesn't if the wrongheaded approach is indeed wrongheaded. However, that would be all the more reason why we need to be proactively advancing positive solutions of our own. The trouble is that until IDS, and now DC, we all but ignored the issues at stake.

[Edward]

I quite agree with the Editor on this. He's spot on and it's just the route we need to take, particularly in debates about policies and certain issues. However, as Iain Lindley says, at the moment we do need to keep banging away to get the "changed" idea into the minds of the politically-disinterested public.

DC could do more to reassure you and I, I'll admit, however, with as little as a deftly buried sentence affirming it at the end of a press release!

[John Hustings]

"Since becoming leader David Cameron has championed one progressive cause after another...

Social justice;
Climate change;
More Tory parliamentary candidates who are women, disabled or are from ethnic minority groups;
Civil liberties in his 'Come And Join Us LibDems' speech;
An 'open-hearted' policy towards asylum seekers;
Devolution to Scotland;
Redistribution;
Global poverty..."

What is left of Conservativism after all that?

Can I ask why the Cameron supporters are so eager to see their boy win the next election? How, after what Cameron has said, do they expect a Conservative government to be different to the one we have?

Also:

"Migration Watch is "effective"? A group of little-Englanders who want to keep people out?"

Migration Watch is not a group of Little Englanders. What an offensive term. Anyone who says immigration should be controlled is immediately labelled "little englander" (implying racism). Can't you argue your point of view without throwing around such needless pejoratives?

[Jaz]

Dc is practically chatacyer building until next year when some of his groups will have somethig substantial to say to him.

Conservative policies will arise sometime within the next two years..Frankly Cameron needs strength of character, only then will the public ACTUALLY believe in conservative policy.

Cameron has toned down immigration quite a bit, but it is a side issue, it should never have been our "frontline" policy, our priority policies should have always been social justice, economy, law and order, health povert etc etc.

Everything Cameron has done is about perception, a perception of change. Its unfortunate some Tories can't cope with a change in perception and rather annoyingly living in the past where the Tories were trustable once.

Frankly...Cameron builds trust in the public to deliver social justice, liberal britain. THEN he talks conservative policy and sell's it.

Lets me honest, his control of the media is brilliant and labour has been totally unable to control this... because a) Theres no sticky dirt on Cameron b) The public refuse to listen to sleeze labour.

[Anthony]

James - I think what Iain means is that we need to solve our image problem before we can sell anything perceived as a right-wing policy. At the moment it isn't possible for us to make the case for lower taxes or more market forces and choice in education or whatever because people aren't listening to our arguments and don't trust our motives.

However sensible the arguments we make about taxation are, our image is tarnished such that if they are coming out the mouth of the Conservative party the public translate them into meaning "Damn the public services. Give more money to our rich friends." Ditto with health and education, good policies, good arguments for them, but our image is so bad that people just looked at it and saw us rolling down an escape ladder for the already wealthy.

Our image problem actively prevents us from selling anything, therefore we need to solve the image problem first before we can sell any policies.

Put it this way - if David Cameron started out making the case for tax cuts (I'm just using them as an example) now, the reaction from non-Tories would be "Oh well, he is just another selfish right-wing Tory after all" and they'd switch straight back off again. If he spends the next year talking about issues we've been seen to ignore - the environment, social justice, women's equality, third world poverty and so on then we might reach a point in the future when some non-Tories have decided that this guy really is different, that he is worth listening to and that maybe the Tories aren't beyond the pale anymore. Then when we make the case for lower taxes (again, or whatever else) people might stop, listen and give us a fair hearing.

[Reasonable]

Unless PD James (the alias, not the Baroness) or Deckchair are women, I would appear to be the sole female posting on this thread thus far.

And I confess to some exasperation. Firstly, some of the attitudes here seem sexist. An "alleged" gender gap in pay. Right. The fact that many women are forced to take a break in their careers for motherhood, and that this may not be a choice, not something you recognise here. Men do not typically need to choose between fatherhood and careers, and, news bulletin, many women don't want to either. 'Social engineering' and 'equality' as dirty words. Well, I want to see that gap eliminated. And so do millions of twenty and thirty something women voters - you know, the ones that always voted Tory and have lately deserted the party. It is the same unthinking sexism displayed by commenters frothing about a goldlist - the idea that women have not been selected, ergo women are not good enough. The idea that sexism may have come into play in the Association interviews apparently simply does not register. Or the idea that since women are obviously not making it into Parliament on the current system they may be put off applying - no takers in the James Hellyer camp.

Secondly, as with the Letwin interviews, many comments are based on an asessment of the headlines rather than what the politicians are actually saying. What is Cameron proposing? Transparency in company pay rates. I think this is a blinder of an idea. One that will expose sexist city companies for example and will assist, not harm, the free market. It will help shareholders as well as employees.

There are many instances where sexism cannot be proved in any individual case. Why was Mr. X preferred to Ms. A for the safe seat of South Barsetshire? He may well have been the best candidate. But where the whole sweep is examined, sexism becomes apparent. Our percentage of MPs who are women clearly does not reflect the balance of skills between Party supporters of both sexes.

More transparency in company pay rates would be an excellent start. Where there are, in fact, institutional sexist hiring and promotion policies, they would be exposed. I have a relative who worked in the city at a senior level and she assures me that sexism is endemic throughout it.

I'm very grateful to Cameron and Letwin. And I trust that their advisers skimming this blog pay no attention to all the advice telling them to fix what ain't broke.

[Reasonable]

Jaz, apologies: you posted as I was typing out the above.

[James Hellyer]

"James - I think what Iain means is that we need to solve our image problem before we can sell anything perceived as a right-wing policy."

But what he said sounds like a cynical bit of bait-and-switch: talk moderate to win 'em over and then lurch to the right.

In any case, I disagree with your analysis. The problem hasn't been our message so much as the way we communicated it. People here seem to mistake stridency for being right wing. The problem wasn't the immigration policy, for example, it was the way Howard dwelt on it and others campaigned in it ("Send Them Back" indeed) that made it seem mean spirited.

As far as tax cuts go, the issue there is that we have allowed the left to frame the debate, so that any talk about tax cuts is linked to slashing public spending. Rather than run away from the issue, we need to frame it in a way that communicates our message. For example, by referring to letting people keep more of what they earn, rather than talking cuts.

The policy should lead the image, rather than the image deny the policy.

[Sean Fear]

The problem is Anthony, that if we spend the next year just apeing the Left on the issues which you've mentioned, it's hard to see how we'll carry any credibility if we suddenly start making right wing noises again.

If we spend the next year arguing that business damages the environment , oppresses women, exploits workers, etc., we're hardly going to be able to make an effective case for capitalism subsequently. Either we'll be stuck with our left-wing rhetorical line, or we'll lose the left-wing voters who might have started viewing us as a left-wing party.

[R UK]

The key to winning power is to steal your enemy's clothes, sure. Equal pay for equal work is pure socialism/labour, and so now in turn becomes new Conservative-speak.

Men being able to have babies should also be an aim. Slogan - I say Chaps - Cameron will bring out the mummy in you.

Men should be forbidden to take risks so that the sexes can in time be merged completely. In fact men can be abolished. Mandelson and Portillo could lead the 'Department of Sexual Symmetry'. Thank God for bureaucracy running every aspect of our lives at last. Makes us all so much more alive don't you think? RRRRRRRRRRR

[Reasonable]

Re: post by RUK: QED.

[James Hellyer]

"It is the same unthinking sexism displayed by commenters frothing about a goldlist - the idea that women have not been selected, ergo women are not good enough"

Have you thought of reponding to what people actually say rather things you've made up? It would be more reasonable.

"Secondly, as with the Letwin interviews, many comments are based on an asessment of the headlines rather than what the politicians are actually saying."

That's odd. Most people commenting on Cameron's remarks have appear to have responded to the text he issued.

And transparency is a daft idea. Why does anyone have a right to know what someone else is paid? The whole idea rests on the assumption that gender dictates pay, as opposed to experience, ability, effort and willingness to work harder, because - no - all differences are due to discrimiantion, deliberate or otherwise.

[Sean Fear]

Reasonable, life is all about making choices. If you *choose* to have children, and take several years bringing them up, you can hardly then expect an employer to employ you at the same level that you'd have been promoted to had you never left work.

[Jaz]

"The problem is Anthony, that if we spend the next year just apeing the Left on the issues which you've mentioned, it's hard to see how we'll carry any credibility if we suddenly start making right wing noises again.

If we spend the next year arguing that business damages the environment , oppresses women, exploits workers, etc., we're hardly going to be able to make an effective case for capitalism subsequently. Either we'll be stuck with our left-wing rhetorical line, or we'll lose the left-wing voters who might have started viewing us as a left-wing party."

Thats not the idea, Cameron or his team arn't talking left policies, infact they've not said any policies except the EPP fiasco.

The impression is of the centre ground. Since when was equality of women and ethnic people a left-issue? Since when did the environment only become the issue of the left or the socialists? You can't honestly accept that hard working women arn't as productive as men, or don't deserve the same pay?

The tory party has for too long ignored all these issues...And that time is over...and people think thats a good idea.

"The key to winning power is to steal your enemy's clothes, sure."

Tony Blair did it well...2 landslides and one decent majority. Labour party set to collapse when he leaves...

Can we cut it with the scare tactics "Cameron is a closet socialist..Ahh...Save us!" routine.
It sounds dumb and uneducated, I don't believe Cameron is a closet socialist, but he knows what needs to be done to win and gain trust, and he WILL make a good prime minister even if he loses the next GE (which is statistically likely)

[Reasonable]

Sean, what I am trying to tell you is that women (like men) do choose to have children but do not necessarily therefore *choose* to spend several years bringing them up. Like men, who enjoy fatherhood and the intellectual challenge of their careers, women would prefer not to be forced into making a choice. Better childcare options and equal pay for equal work, enabling women to afford better nursery schools or some part time help would ameliorate the situation.

If you long for a 1950s England where Daddy went to work, Mummy looked after the children and met him at the end of the day with a cocktail at the front door, then I don't think you're going to be happy with Cameron's Tory party.

[Reasonable]

James Hellyer, they have a right to know because it would expose illegal activity, such as a clear company policy of preferring men for promotions, positions and bonuses. As I said, sexism in any one case is nigh on impossible to prove. A pattern of endemic sexism however is a different matter.

Transparency. Great idea. Radical yet sound Tory thinking.

[Sean fear]

Nice straw man in that last paragraph, Reasonable.

Many women do actually prefer to invest a considerable amount of their time in the upbringing of their children. I see nothing particularly sinister about this, and indeed this is why women are usually given custody of children in child custody cases.

[Sean Fear]

"As I said, sexism in any one case is nigh on impossible to prove."

Which suggests it's rather less widespread than you imagine.

[R UK]

RULE 1. All working environments are the same.

RULE 2. All human beings are the same.

The arbiter of any breaches of Rules 1 + 2 will be a tribunal set up to monitor the Rules, which will use perfect objectivity. The only possessors of perfect objectivity are a higher class of human being capable of performing such judgements. ERGO - the law is in breach of itself....

I'm emigrating to somewhere outside the EU, where we don't have to talk bollocks any more. I've had enough. Cameron, throw us a crumb mate - the EPP ?

[Reasonable]

How so? That's a leap of logic.

Impossible to prove in a given case. Very easy to prove when a clear pattern is exposed.

And it's you who are setting up the straw man. Women who work do spend 'a considerable amount of time' looking after their children. It is sexist to imply that a woman is a bad parent for wanting to work outside the home as well, but a father may do so without your disapproval.

Why do men typically work and women stay home? Guess what? Women are typically paid and promoted less. It makes financial sense for the family - meaning her "choice" is forced upon her.

Transparency, to catch illegal sexism in companies by exposing a clear pattern, would be one way to ensure the choice to stay home all the time is a free one.

[Sean Fear]

"Since when was equality of women and ethnic people a left-issue?"

Equality before the law is certainly not a left-wing issue. Everybody in this country has equality before the law.

Trying to achieve equality of outcome, OTOH, is always a left-wing issue.

[John Hustings]

"Unless PD James (the alias, not the Baroness) or Deckchair are women, I would appear to be the sole female posting on this thread thus far."

Does that mean this website is sexist? No, wait, the internet is sexist. Let's "re-educate" everyone. Better yet, let's set an equal quota for the posters on this site. Until we get enough female contributers, no males allowed. That sound good to you?

"And I confess to some exasperation. Firstly, some of the attitudes here seem sexist. An "alleged" gender gap in pay. Right. "

Given what is described by the Equal Opportunities Commission as discrimination, it seems only right to be a bit sceptical. When we are told of "unequal pay", this does *not* mean unequal pay for doing the exact same job for the exact same hours; but that is what it sounds like, and that is what the public is led to believe it means.

As Sean Fear says, the reason why women earn less, on the whole, is the career choices they make. How do you propose this is addressed? Furthermore, *why* should it be our aim to address it? Why should it be the priority of government to have men and women doing the exact same jobs, working the exact same hours (despite what this does to the family unit), no matter how much regulation this involves, how unfair it is, and how much cost it involves to the economy?

Is it a conservative belief to try to mould society artificially to progressive ends? Aren't we all about letting society have the freedom to go its own way and to stop interfering?

Why is it, in your view, the priority of government to socially engineer (even natural) differences out of men and women?

And why do you attribute all differences that exist to that catch-all phrase "discrimination"? Do you have evidence that this is the reason?

(No you don't. You assume what can't be proven.)

"The fact that many women are forced to take a break in their careers for motherhood, and that this may not be a choice, not something you recognise here. Men do not typically need to choose between fatherhood and careers, and, news bulletin, many women don't want to either."

What's your point?

So it's nature that's unfair? This is surely not discrimination. You want government to intervene to prop-up women *above and beyond* what is equal (to make up for nature's doing). You *call* this equality. Despite the fact that it is the exact opposite.

"'Social engineering' and 'equality' as dirty words."

Yes. Absolutely. They go completely contrary to conservative principles. If you want to see your feminist ideology embodied, go join the Labour party.

"Well, I want to see that gap eliminated. And so do millions of twenty and thirty something women voters - you know, the ones that always voted Tory and have lately deserted the party."

Oh I'm sure lots of young women want to get paid for not working, and get promotion for not working. That sounds just great.

That doesn't make it right.

"And so do millions of twenty and thirty something women voters - you know, the ones that always voted Tory and have lately deserted the party. It is the same unthinking sexism displayed by commenters frothing about a goldlist - the idea that women have not been selected, ergo women are not good enough."

Ergo, your gender or race, or whether you happen to be disabled, should not be what qualifies you as an MP. Do you not understand that?

This is not arguing for discrimination *against* women (which may be how you interpret it), it merely argues against discriminating *in favour* of women (which is what you want; I wonder, if men were underrepresented, whether you would want positive discrimination for them?)

"Or the idea that since women are obviously not making it into Parliament on the current system they may be put off applying - no takers in the James Hellyer camp."

The odds are firmly against *most* wannabe candidates getting a spot in parliament. You have to be prepared to fight against the odds to make it there. That is what we want. Hopefully it makes for good MPs. Better, one would think, than those who have had it all laid on a plate for them because of their particular gender or race.

[Biodun]

"Migration Watch is not a group of Little Englanders. What an offensive term. "

It most certainly is, John Hustings.

I remember watching an interview with Andrew Green, the head of MigrationWatch one Sunday morning, complaining that there are too many non-white faces in London today.

He was then challenged by the presenter, who stated that his problem was not with the high levels of immigration into London but the fact that the immigrants were black and brown.
Andrew Green had no response.

MigrationWatch's forums are filled with old ladies complaining about the number of Koreans in New Malden, not the number of Australians in Fulham and Putney.

They don't have a problem with my living in this country. They have a problem with the colour of my skin.

[Reasonable]

I am a young (ish) working mother. Many if not most of my girlfriends juggle both children and careers. I don't personally know any woman in my age group (20s and 30s) who stays home full time with her children. The Tory party will need to understand that mothers, no more than fathers, should be castigated for wanting both children and a career. I spend half my day at the office and half with my children; I run my own business, so I have that option. My husband, also an entrepreneur with a company of his own, does the same. Thus, we juggle work and childcare and each have the best of both worlds. We consider ourselves equal breadwinners and equal parents. Other wives are not so fortunate. I want to ensure not equality of outcome (socialist) but equality of opportunity (conservative). Transparency in company pay rates guarantees the latter by eliminating the ability to hide a pattern of sexist behaviour.

[Reasonable]

John Hustings, your views are the reason DC won in a landslide.

Your nonsensical post is riddled with sexism, and I look forward to debunking it tomorrow morning - but I have just put the children to bed and am off to do a little more work.

[Sean Fear]

No leap in logic at all Reasonable. In discrimination cases, the burden of proof is on the employer. If, despite this, pleny of such cases fail, then it's reasonable to assume the evidence is weak.

It is profoundly wrong, and unConservative, to assume that differences in outcomes must be the result of discrimination.

It should be up to the man and woman in any relationship to decide how they want to divide their responsibilities towards any children they may have. It is no business whatsoever of government to try and create some artificial outcome.

[Biodun]

Reasonable, you're not the only woman posting on the thread, don't you worry.

I am sure there are others apart from you and I reading it too.

When people cannot deduce your gender from your user-name, they tend to assume you're male for some reason.

[John Hustings]

"I remember watching an interview with Andrew Green, the head of MigrationWatch one Sunday morning, complaining that there are too many non-white faces in London today.

He was then challenged by the presenter, who stated that his problem was not with the high levels of immigration into London but the fact that the immigrants were black and brown.
Andrew Green had no response."

I can't verify this anecdote (conveniently), except to say that I find it extremely difficult to believe that the conversation went the way that you say. I have seen and heard Andrew Green interviewed on television and the radio many times and I've never noticed him say anything even slightly racist. (If he is racist, then he is too clever to allow himself to be caught out in the way you suggest.)

Besides which, I'm completely fed up with anyone who suggests that we should control our borders being labelled a racist. It's nonsensical, stupid and downright bullying.

[AnnaK]

I have been reading this blog since the beginning of the leadership election. I am not a member, and never have been a member of any political party.

I became interested in David Cameron when I heard him give a speech on disability issues on television.

I am surprised that some people have already started to criticise Cameron at such an early stage. It seems to me that everything he says is well planned in advance and he will talk about core issues after the 100 days are up.

He seems fairly right wing to me. (e.g.) The new harder line policy on Northern Ireland.

I find Labour's reaction to Cameron much more interesting at this moment in time.

[John Hustings]

"John Hustings, your views are the reason DC won in a landslide."

*Blushes*

I didn't realise I was so influential!

Incidentally, there is an interesting article in the Times today apropos of the Equal Pay Act:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1961661,00.html

[James Maskell]

The Northern Ireland thing is no suprize. The Conservative Party is by name Unionist and has always been sceptical of the intentions behind Sinn Feins actions (and rightfully so).

[James Maskell]

And our criticisms are instinctive. Cameron is rocking the boat quite hard and criticism like this is par for the course from the Conservative Party.

[R UK]

Being Reasonable is not the same thing as being reasonable.

If you use the law to manipulate an outcome say equal pay between sexes, or minimum wage, there is a cost. With the minimum wage the result is high youth unemployment, and higher unemployment. There is likewise a cost to the employer in hiring women as against men, in that women are far more likely ot opt for part time work once they have children or to stop work.

If you price this equally, the demand for men will increase and for women will decrease. As Reasonable employs herself, she is not affected.

Many women are happy that men earn more than they do so that when they go parttime or stop work, they benefit from male pay being higher as do their children. Society has method in its madness. One dimensional thinking such as equal pay for women will only promote the interests of the childless over the child-rearing, and handicap families that still (despite fashion and some individuals such as Reasonable) depend predominantly on male pay.

[Wat Tyler]

Interesting thread, but going right back to the beginning, I completely agree with our esteemed Editor.

DC's Conservatives are putting up an incredibly impressive display in terms of reshaping the Party's image and occupying the centre ground that Tony reckoned he had "staked out". Both the media and the punters seem to be loving it, as the polls testify.

We believers in "the more traditional conservative beliefs - like small government, decentralisation and family values" are naturally concerned. But we can hardly claim to be surprised.

And the fact is that none of the major parties is any longer going to risk wandering off the centre. So it's not going to be any good hassling DC to adopt rightish policies which he can then sell to the voters. He's just not going to do it. He will follow the centre, but he will not lead it.

Which is why Ed is so right in saying we need to strengthen that "conservative infrastructure". Rather than impotently raging against an increasingly successful, but centrist Tory leadership, those of us who believe in say small government would be much better advised supporting the campaigning groups like the Taxpayers Alliance who actually aim to lead opinion rather than follow.

That's certainly my New Years resolution.

[Biodun]

"I can't verify this anecdote (conveniently), except to say that I find it extremely difficult to believe that the conversation went the way that you say".

In that case I'll help you out. That specific interview was at least two years ago, and it was something I walked in on, and didn't pay much attention to sadly, at the time.

Your comment implies that I am making spurious accusations, so I will draw your attention to an article on Andrew Green in the Guardian last month.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/immigration/story/0,15729,1627476,00.html

I will also take the liberty of highlighting the comments Mr. Green made which indicate a bias towards the origins of the immigrants he is complaining about.

-----------------------------------------
"How can we integrate people at this pace, especially as 70% of the net inflow of foreign citizens are from the distant cultures of Asia and Africa?"
--------------------------------------

or this even

-------------------------------------
"We have no problem with immigration from Poland, which is valuable to all sides." The problem was the scale of immigration from other parts of the world. "The government must make a reduction in numbers from elsewhere. What they could do is reduce the number of work permits for the rest of the world."
---------------------------------------

On this thread, the debate is how equality of outcome should not be used to determine policy.

Yet those who champion MigrationWatch must feel that outcome of the skin colour of immigrants should determine the immigration policy, not just the number of immigrants in total.

Double Standards?

People need to pick one side of the fence and stay there!

[Richard Allen]

"How can we integrate people at this pace, especially as 70% of the net inflow of foreign citizens are from the distant cultures of Asia and Africa?"

"We have no problem with immigration from Poland, which is valuable to all sides." The problem was the scale of immigration from other parts of the world. "The government must make a reduction in numbers from elsewhere. What they could do is reduce the number of work permits for the rest of the world."

This is simply a matter of common sense. It is a blindingly obvious fact that immigrants from Eastern Europe that fill a skills gap will on the whole be more welcome than unskilled Africans (not to say that all Africans are unskilled but many are). It is NOT racist.

[R UK]

Biodun - it's not just about colour. Polish and other central europeans share a common european heritage and culture. People from African and Asian e.g. countries have different cultural expectations, much as we all love the variety and colour!

There is more potential for social conflict if too much cultural change is asked for too quickly. In fact colour is far less of a problem where cultural issues are not present. Culture is heavily engrained and hard to change in people. It's just common sense. It's a case of how much change and how quickly - that's all. See how the homegrown terrorists are the kids of the immigrants. The adjustment takes generations not just a few years.

Interestingly only Britain has opened its borders to immigration on the scale that we have. Other EU countries are far more xenophobic than Brits.

[John Hustings]

Biodun, I didn't see anything racist in what you posted -- certainly nothing like what you had implied he had said. If you're going to tar Andrew Green with the "racist" brush, you should do a bit better!

[Biodun]

R_UK, your points are fair, but once again this is the Equality of Outcome over the Equality of Opportunity rearing it's head again.

You can't use it for arguments where it suits you, e.g. gender gaps and so on, and then throw it away when it comes to immigration.

and Richard Allen, your comment
-------------------------------------------
It is a blindingly obvious fact that immigrants from Eastern Europe that fill a skills gap will on the whole be more welcome than unskilled Africans (not to say that all Africans are unskilled but many are).
------------------------------------------

is your perception does not reflect the reality.
The October 7th 2004 edition of the economist has this to say
--------------------------------------------
One way that ethnic groups force governments to engage with them, of course, is to be hopeless. That is not the case for black Africans—or, at least, not universally. Single-parent households are considerably rarer than among Afro-Caribbeans. Anglophone immigrants from countries like Nigeria and Ghana are aspirational; thanks mostly to them, 38% of black African adults hold higher educational qualifications—more than any other ethnic group.
--------------------------------------------
and that includes whites!

Many African immigrants, both legal and illegal are the university graduates who cannot find jobs in their countries with 70% unemployment.

Their harsh accents and unsophistication mask the fact that they actually are degree holders.
You'd be shocked at how many of the cleaners and ticket inspectors in London have a higher education.

I know quite a few of them personally.

The ironic thing is that I am actually against immigration as it stands in the UK but for different reasons.

What is irritating is the hypocrisy.

Far better for people to come out and say what they actually think, e.g. what Andrew Green does than to have his apologists say he is not racist, he only advocates we discriminate on race.

What kind of double-think is that?

Better to be informed by unbiased organisations such as the Economist than associations such as MigrationWatch which consist of members with dubious opinions.

[John Hustings]

"Far better for people to come out and say what they actually think, e.g. what Andrew Green does than to have his apologists say he is not racist, he only advocates we discriminate on race."

Does he though?

[John Hustings]

"Better to be informed by unbiased organisations such as the Economist than associations such as MigrationWatch which consist of members with dubious opinions."

Oh and I can't but pick you up on this:

What is an "unbiased organisation" and how does one recognise it?

[Biodun]

You tell me John. What do you think

----------------------------

"How can we integrate people at this pace, especially as 70% of the net inflow of foreign citizens are from the distant cultures of Asia and Africa?"
----------------------------

means if not that?

[Richard Allen]

Biodun

Actually I would accept that immigration from many Western African nations is a mostly positive thing and that most immigrants from this part of the world make a good contribution to our society. My use of the term "unskilled Africans" compared to skilled eastern Europeans was inexcusably sloppy. The point that I sought to make was that it is not racist to welcome immigration from areas where the majority of immigrants play a positive role while having major concerns about immigration from areas (such as parts of Africa and Asia) where they very often do not.

PS: The economist is not as sound as it used to be.

[R UK]

Culture. Equality. No obvious connection, Biodun. Or do you not accept the existence of culture? Culture is the big divide is my point, not colour. OK?

[James Hellyer]

"James Hellyer, they have a right to know because it would expose illegal activity, such as a clear company policy of preferring men for promotions, positions and bonuses."

It wouldn't show that at all. It will show what people are paid, but not why. All you are doing is sacrificing people's right to privacy to pander to your own sexist paranoia - and that's not Conservative thinking.

[Sean Fear]

Don't you think though, that integration is an issue, Biodun? Things like the 7/7 bombings, or the recent riots in Handsworth would suggest that some groups do find it harder to integrate into our society than others.

[James Hellyer]

"They don't have a problem with my living in this country. They have a problem with the colour of my skin."

Well, one thing we've learned today is that the female posters have an afinity for straw men.

If you actually read Migrationwatch's website (and publications like Do we need mass immigration?
from Civitas) you'll see that the different attitudes to white and non-white immigrants rest not on their skin colour, but on a combination of factors including the short term stays enjoyed by the majority of Australian and American immigrants, for example, and the more obvious cultural differences and subsequent barriers to integration that some other minorities bring with them.

[Biodun]

------------------------------------
"Culture. Equality. No obvious connection, Biodun. Or do you not accept the existence of culture? Culture is the big divide is my point, not colour. OK?"
------------------------------------

R_UK,
Of course I believe in the existence of culture. What I don't believe in, (and I'm sure many of you will be suprised to hear this) is a multi-cultural society. Only a multi-ethnic and to some extent although not as much, a multi-faith one.

I DO believe that there is a serious problem with integration as do many other non-white immigrants.

The problem with MigrationWatch's policy is that it automatically bars anyone who is non-white but wants to become a part of British Culture from doing so.
How is this Equality of Opportunity as proclaimed by The Conservative Party?

How am I, as a West African first-generation, female and Christian immigrant who speaks English as a second language such a threat to this country?

I am not exactly part of the demographic they are welcoming now, am I?

Some minorities bring barriers to integration granted, Jams. Many on the other hand do not and want to integrate, is it fair to shut the door to most because of a few miscreants?

Many of the Antipodeans I have come into contact with have nothing nice to say about Brits and are quite happy sticking with their own. If the comments they made came out of the mouths of a Pakistani Muslim he would have been arrested on a racial hatred charge.

[James Hellyer]

"The problem with MigrationWatch's policy is that it automatically bars anyone who is non-white but wants to become a part of British Culture from doing so."

No it doesn't. Please cite the exact thing you are talking about.

"If the comments they made came out of the mouths of a Pakistani Muslim he would have been arrested on a racial hatred charge."

Nice generalisation. If the comments made about the English by lots of Welsh people were made by a Pakistani Muslim he would have been arrested on a racial hatred charge. So what? You get nasty people of all races.

[Editor]

A warning to those discussing this issue...

Accusing someone of racism is serious. I am unpersuaded by the arguments you are making Biodun and think you are coming close to making a very hurtful accusation. I'd ask you to post very carefully...

[Biodun]

Well, I'm not sure which comment exactly you object to, Ed.

I respect the fact that we have to be careful, so that ConservativeHome doesn't get sued for libel.

Notice that I did not explicitly called Andrew Green racist. I implied that he favoured an immigration policy biased against certain continents, which are populated by people of different races.

When i was talking about people who might have problems with the colour of my skin, I was referring to the people whose comments are posted on Migration Watch and those who support the work of the organisation.

I used to visit the website quite often a while back and was appalled at some of the letters they chose to publish at the time.

[James Hellyer]

You specifically said he objected to some immigrants because of their skin colour.

[John Hustings]

"I respect the fact that we have to be careful, so that ConservativeHome doesn't get sued for libel."

Besides which, to be accused of racism is extremely serious (and offensive) and such a charge should not be made lightly.

[Richard]

Regarding the debate about equal work and equal pay - am I the only one that thinks it is not the Government's business what companies pay their employees and on what basis?

I am not a libertarian but I am sympathetic to the Libertarian Alliance position on this issue - businesses should be able to hire who they want on whatever terms they want and set pay rates according to their own criteria.

[Biodun]

---------------------------------------
You specifically said he objected to some immigrants because of their skin colour.

Posted by: James Hellyer | December 29, 2005 at 09:06 PM
---------------------------------------

Well since I can't find any records on that TV programme I watched, I will have to retract the comments attributed in my first post (regarding the skin colour of London immigrants), to Andrew Green until I can prove them.

HOWEVER,

I still think his comments in the Guardian that I quoted after that, still support my views.

If MigrationWatch prefers a Polish plumber who doesn't speak English to a Kenyan who grew up singing God Save The Queen, then you have to ask if it is really culture or race that they use to suggest who can live and work here.

[Sean Fear]

Quite Richard. Provided people aren't actually cheated out of what they have bargained for, terms and conditions of employment in the private sector should be no concern of governments.

[a-tracy]

Aren't these pay discrepancies based on whole career earnings, not taking into account things like overtime etc. Statistics at there most imaginative.

What's going to be suggested next that career break mums are paid a wage by their husband (taxed & NI'd). If the ladies aren't happy with their earnings they should go get another job paying more - I would. Go to nightschool and get a promotion or start their own business - women are being actively encouraged by organisations like Business Link to do just this.

What after that - we should all earn the exact same amount per hour worked!

You could turn this argument on its head - Why would a private company, whose sole purpose of existence is to produce a profit and survive each year, pay a man more money to do the same job as a woman? There would be no men in senior positions or middle management if these claims were true as it would be cheaper and therefore more profitable to employ purely women. So from an economic point of view I don't understand this argument. The claim that private companies are defrauding their shareholders by paying more than is necessary to get the job done just to engage more men is completely bogus in my humble opinion.

[Andy Peterkin]

"This is an issue which used to annoy me at university, where members of the Labour club would constantly bang on about this issue."

If this is the Frank Young I think it is, is this before or after you joined the Labour Club in question?