Sobering Thoughts...

No blog post or "whine" suggestion this week. Instead, I thought I'd share an article I wrote for the F-Word blog a few days ago.

Read and Enjoy!

https://www.thefword.org.uk/2016/10/its-data-not-ambition-that-holds-back-female-business-owners/

Murdoch, the PM and Red Bordeaux

Tasting notes: Bordeaux is one of the better known blended wine varieties, combining various types of grape to give a variety of flavors depending on region, age and grape combination. The older a Bordeaux gets, the more powerful it becomes, commanding higher prices as a result. And so it is with Rupert Murdoch’s relationship with British politics.

Over the years, the relationship a Prime Minister has with the press has become a topic of public discussion. From Margaret Thatcher’s secret deal with Rupert Murdoch to Theresa May’s most recent meeting with the media tycoon, there has never been a shortage of intrigue and speculation over who was controlling whom.

Last month, May, who has a reputation for keeping the media at arm’s length, met Rupert Murdoch in New York, managing to squeeze him into her 36hr trip to the Big Apple. Owner of both The Times and The Sun newspapers, along with Sky, Murdoch now owns a third of the British media, and May’s private meeting with him has not gone unnoticed.

Murdoch is also a massive ‘outie’. He was not shy about his preference for the UK to leave the EU and when asked why he replied:

“When I go to Downing Street, they do what I say; when I go to Brussels, they take no notice.”

Now this is a statement worth exploring.

Back in the early 80’s, the relationship between British politics and the media changed forever.

We should avoid a lazy comparison being drawn between the UK’s only female PMs, but in 1981 a long covered up meeting took place between Margaret Thatcher and Rupert Murdoch, the topic of which was Murdoch’s desire to acquire The Times newspaper.

His purchase would effectively give Murdoch control over 40% of the British press and it was all made possible by Thatcher, who helped him avoid a referral to the Monopolies and Mergers commission which would have probably prevented this from occurring.

The reason behind this move from Thatcher was to gain media support. At the time of the secret meeting, she was lagging behind in the polls and needed all the support she could get. And Murdoch? He wanted an empire – win/win.

In hindsight, this was a horrendous mistake on Thatcher’s part, demonstrating an unforgivable short-term selfishness which was to give an unelected individual far too much power over public opinion. From now on, every PM would need to get Murdoch on-side to stand any chance of achieving favourable coverage.

So how far are politicians in the pocket of Murdoch and his press empire?

Well, May hasn’t done a great job of separating herself from comparisons with her reckless predecessor, given that her meeting with Murdoch seemed equally ‘secret’, taking place across the pond, with Downing Street defensively stating that a “brief meeting” had taken place at the offices of Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal publication.

But this has been going on for years. It is now widely speculated that Tony Blair’s electoral success was largely due to his close relationship with the media mogul, who supported him in all three of his electoral campaigns.

And if you need more evidence of Blair and Murdoch’s special relationship, Blair is a godfather to one of his children!

What about Cameron? Well, guess which billionaire backed Cameron over Brown in his first bid for No.10… that’s right, our good friend Rupert.

Cameron himself admitted, after the phone hacking scandal, that he felt he had become too close to the media, but was quick to stress that this was across a wide range of titles, not just the third owned by Murdoch.

Relations between No.10 and the Murdoch empire have been notably strained since the phone-hacking drama, but it seems as though this bridge is being rebuilt.

It is now clear that May does want Murdoch on-side, and why wouldn’t she? He supported her bid against Gove in the post-Brexit leadership battle and she will need all the support she can get over the next few months, as the EU exit negotiations heat up.

We should end by stating that the use of the press to promote a political agenda is nothing new. There are whole schools of historical thought dedicated to it and it’s been going on for as long as newspapers have existed.

What’s worrying is not really the dynamic between press and politics but the dynamic between the UK’s various elected leader’s and an unelected individual who seems, not only, to have a skill for putting politicians in his pocket but, worse still, gets them to jump in willingly

Labour opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has come out and said that, if Labour were to win the next election, he would put plans in place to break up the big media groups. Interestingly, this was only after he bemoaned the ‘horrendous’ attitude the media was showing towards his party – I’m not so sure he’d be so keen to end the monopoly if they were rallying in his favour.

The fact that the press does hold sway over public opinion is one that cannot be avoided, as much as we hope that we are immune to that kind of ‘mind-control’. It benefits politicians to have media supporters and it’s even more important to keep them on-side during their term if they are to stand any chance of re-election or ongoing public support.

Until the locks on the back-door at No.10 are changed, Murdoch will keep sneaking in.

Why Bordeaux?

Bordeaux is one of the most famous blended wines in the world. It has an illustrious heritage and has secured a reputation for being one of the fine wines of the higher class.

Rupert Murdoch is arguably one of the most powerful men in the world. His influence in both the UK and the US is unrivalled and he most recently became the CEO of Fox News, adding to his already expansive empire. He is a regular on the Forbes rich lists and has had “more impact on the wider world than any other living Australian”, according to former Aussie Prime Minister, Tony Abbott.

Bordeaux is a full-bodied and powerful wine which, when tasted, has an initial fruity flavor, giving way to drying, savory tannins as an after taste. To many, this can be quite overwhelming and unpleasant and the older the wine, the stronger the tannins become.

It’s the same with Murdoch. I’m sure that, at first, Thatcher saw him as merely a tool to help her gain additional support from a disenchanted electorate, but, as he has aged, he has become more powerful and has had a lasting impact on British (and US) politics which, to many, now seems quite unpleasant.

Finally, as a blended wine, the balance of grape varieties is key to the end result. Likewise, the relationship Murdoch has forged with various Prime Minister’s will always be individual and a balance has had to be struck each time. It will be interesting to see the dynamic that emerges with May and the part he will play in successive governments.

What is indisputable is that this relationship, like Bordeaux, it will always have a place in the (wine) Cabinet, whether we can afford it or not.

The Northern Powerhouse, Osborne and Cabernet Sauvignon

Tasting Notes: Cabernet Sauvignon is a bold and rich wine, bursting with tannins. When young, these elements are at their peak, but as it ages the flavours mellow. Similarly, the Northern Powerhouse was a strong and bold idea in its infancy, but as time has gone on, has the enthusiasm begun to mellow?

Last week, it was announced that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has decided to chair the newly formed ‘Northern Powerhouse Partnership’, allowing him to focus his political energies on the project that gave him so much air-time as Chancellor.

Osborne coined the term ‘Northern Powerhouse’ two years ago in the Power Hall at Manchester’s Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI), giving rise to an unprecedented modern enthusiasm among northerners for local economic growth and prosperity.

He ceremoniously proclaimed that:

“The Northern Powerhouse can’t be built over-night. It’s a long-term plan for a country serious about its long-term economic future. It means jobs and prosperity and security for people here over future decades.

And I promise you this – I will work tirelessly with anyone across political divides in any of these great cities to make the Northern Powerhouse a reality.”

That promise to work tirelessly has been kept it seems - a rarity among the political elite I’m sure many will agree.

The initial proposal included plans for improved transport links, the devolution of power to elected mayors, and major investment in science and innovation projects across Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle.

During David Cameron’s time at No.10, the initiative seemed to gather momentum, capturing the imagination of business leaders while also securing lucrative Chinese backing. A government “pitchbook”, which sought to outline “attractive international investment opportunities in the North of England”, was published two weeks before President Xi Jinping’s visit, unashamedly addressed to the Chinese market.

“It gives me great pleasure to present this pitch book – the first of its kind – to the Chinese investment community today.”

By comparison, when Theresa May replaced Cameron in July, not only did she show notable reluctance when it came to endorsing the Northern Powerhouse - shifting focus away from the north, towards a more nationwide industrial strategy - she also notoriously snubbed the Chinese during the recent Hinkley debacle, making no secret of the fact that she mistrusted the country’s involvement with UK infrastructure projects.

Could this be the real reason behind her lack of enthusiasm?

Speaking on BBC Radio 4 for the first time since he left the Cabinet, Osborne commented on May’s unenthusiastic approach to his beloved pet project, admitting that he has had to persuade the new government to push on with the Northern Powerhouse vision, and accusing May of having a “wobble” over the commitment it would require.

Since announcing his new chairmanship, he has admitted that he did not consult May about the decision, only seeking counsel from his Rochdale-born political ally and Local Government and Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid. Whether this was because he could not get ‘face-time’ with the new PM, or whether it was an intentional decision, we may never know, but it now seems that May has granted her blessing.

In an article for the Manchester Evening News, earlier this week, May left us in no doubt that she is in full support of the Northern Powerhouse initiative, waxing lyrical about how “Manchester has always been a city where the future has been invented” and confirming that she will “work with leaders here in Greater Manchester to build on the Northern Powerhouse, celebrating and further spurring the enormous contribution and potential of cities like Manchester, to deliver economic prosperity and more opportunities for everyone.”

Speaking at the think-tank’s launch this week, Osborne also confirmed that the PM was now on-board with the ideas he has for the partnership; but he was also quick to note its independence from any London-centric governmental policy.

“Of course the partnership with Government is important, but the Northern Powerhouse has to be owned by the north, run by the north, it’s got to have enthusiasm in the north.”

Devolution and the planned election of mayors in Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield, along with seven other city-regions, shows that the desire for independence is there, despite the North-East declining the offer with a ‘thanks, but no thanks’ letter to Whitehall earlier this month. There’s no pleasing some people!

It is this kind of support, especially in the North West, which has resulted in ‘Northern Powerhouse’ becoming a widely recognised term with real meaning and promise, despite May’s administration dialling down the hype built-up by Osborne.

Osborne built a brand out of the Northern Powerhouse. It was his flagship policy, arguably defining his legacy as Chancellor. For many, it remains a turning point: challenging the North-South divide head-on, subverting a London-centric mentality, and attempting to rebalance the economy.

It is a shame that one of Osborne’s most vocal supporters, Sir Howard Bernstein, is stepping down from his 45-year tenure as Chief Executive of Manchester Council, at a time when he could really use some additional support.

In recognition of his snappy-scarf clad ally, Osborne led tributes to Sir Howard, defining him as “the star of British local government”, admitting that there is no councillor that “comes close to him”.

Nevertheless, Osborne’s enthusiasm for his new role alongside other (less eccentric) local politicians and business leaders, will seek to use the Partnership as a way to share ideas and lobby the government to push forward with devolution plans.

Writing in the Sun, Osborne stated that he would “keep asking questions about what more we can do to help the north succeed”, encouraging regional powers to “take a greater role in deciding its own future.”

So it looks as if the Northern Powerhouse won’t be powering down any time soon.

Why Cabernet Sauvignon?

According to Wikipedia (the font of all knowledge):

“For many years, the origin of Cabernet Sauvignon was not clearly understood and many myths and conjectures surrounded it.”

Likewise, this seems to have been the case with the Northern Powerhouse. While it will inevitably always be linked with Osborne’s impassioned speeches in various Mancunian locations, it was a concept that many northern councils were advocating before Osborne took it to press.

During his time in Cabinet, Osborne was criticised for using the initiative as a means of political point scoring, but doesn’t this latest move show that he was genuinely passionate about the project? And won’t his continued involvement nsure the initiative keeps its momentum?

When it was first introduced, the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ was a concept that few fully understood - but now it is a well coined phrase, with positive connotations, that has re-ignited enterprise and regional pride in many northern cities. While this may not have extended to the North-East quite yet, it is promising to see that the project wasn’t boxed up with the rest of Osborne’s office stationary when he was handed his P45 by May.

A second parallel we can draw relates to the aging of Cabernet Sauvignon. In its infancy, the wine is strong and bold; but, as it ages, the taste mellows and it becomes more palatable, with a wider variety of food pairings. Hopefully, this will be the case with the Northern Powerhouse. With Osborne still on board, and a government-backed body now established, we must focus on the longer term, encouraging it to work in harmony with a wider variety of initiatives and interest groups throughout the north.

Cabernet Sauvignon production it is not restricted to one region. In fact, it is a wine which is produced in numerous old and new world countries, including France, Italy, California and Australia.

Similarly, the success of the Northern Powerhouse will be fully realised when all northern regions embrace the enthusiasm for change. Just like the growing of Cabernet Sauvignon, the method just needs to be adapted to suit the various climates.

Theresa May and (this) Malbec

Tasting notes: This week I am being rather specific with the wine suggestion, due to being absolutely blown away by the bottle in question. The 2014 Famiglia Bianchi Argentinian Malbec, which I had the pleasure of trying recently, was a lovely surprise. It tasted quite closed to begin with, but given some time, the complexities made themselves known and it was worth the wait!

Theresa May has been Prime Minister of Great Britain for just over two-months now, and has presided over arguably the most fractious period of UK politics in living memory. After taking the poisoned chalice from Cameron’s defeated grip, she has managed to restore relative calm in a sea of uncertainty and negative speculation.

Comparisons to Thatcher aside, she has shown herself to be a formidable force in Westminster already, taking no time to restructure government departments and proclaim, wholeheartedly, that the UK will be leaving the EU…eventually.

The date on which Article 50  (the formal application for EU member state withdrawal) will be invoked is still unknown. Former culture secretary, John Whittingdale, told the Telegraph recently that he has urged May to trigger formal withdrawal within the next few weeks, while May herself has said numerous times that she wishes to wait until early next year to proceed.

On the 7^th September, in the first Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) since the summer recess, May was quick to make clear to parliament that:

“We will not take decisions until we are ready. We will not reveal our hand prematurely and we will not provide a running commentary on every twist and turn of the negotiation.”

This was quickly followed by jibes from Corbyn claiming that there was evidently an “extraordinary lack of planning” by government on how to proceed, warning that “parliament and the public cannot be sidelined” on matters as important as this.

Yes, open government is desirable and the transparency of UK parliamentary proceedings is something that we should be proud of as a nation. But it is understandable that May wishes to take her time and analyse the situation carefully, before scrutiny and political point scoring muddies the water.

The day after this session of PMQs, May hosted a breakfast with the EU council president, Donald Tusk, to discuss how a positive working relationship could be developed. The two main topics on the agenda were the likelihood of securing a single market agreement, and immigration. 

Tusk tweeted, prior to the meeting, that he hoped to establish “the closest possible EU-UK relations” but that the “ball” is very much in the “UK court” in terms of starting negotiations.

Despite Tusk’s best efforts to persuade May to trigger Article 50 quickly, May remained resolute that no formal announcement would be made until 2017.

The pressure she must be feeling from the European Parliament’s lead Brexit negotiator Guy Verhofstadt, French president Francois Hollande and other EU leaders is surely immense, and so it demonstrates great strength and resolve that, rather than bowing to their demands, she is  standing firm in her opinion that this process should be orchestrated properly and with careful planning; in direct contrast to Corbyn’s criticism.

May’s recent meeting with G20 leaders was similarly intense. The US refused to make a trade deal with the UK a priority while negotiations take place and Japan issued an unprecedented 15-page warning on the consequences of Brexit - tough day.

China is also a troublesome voice in May’s ear, especially due to the uncertainty surrounding UK investment plans following the Hinkley debacle. This was an early example of the  caution exercised by May when it comes to important decisions. She delayed approval of the nuclear site at the eleventh hour, causing controversy and upset among  the Chinese and  the French, both of whom had  already sunk billions of pounds into the project. Admittedly, so has the UK.

It seems that May has a habit of taking a step back and delaying decisions, but in no way should this be viewed as a bad thing. Despite pressure from world leaders and domestic opposition,  she has not relented, giving parliament the  time it needs to look at the issues in depth. Time to debate, analyse and strategize, something that has perhaps been lacking in other, gung-ho, administrations.

On her recent flight to Hangzhou, China, recently, she spoke perceptively about the situation, commenting:

“I won’t pretend it is all going to be plain sailing. There will be some difficult times ahead. We will be looking ahead to the autumn statement. So in terms of how we are going to position things, the detail will be coming out then. What I’m clear about is I am going to continue as we have done in government over the last six years ensuring we are going to live within our means.”

 So it seems that we will have to wait until the Autumn Statement to hear her plan of action.

Why Malbec?

As mentioned in the tasting notes, this is not necessarily about Malbec in general, but about a specific bottle I had the pleasure of tasting at a lovely little place called Bakerie, located in Manchester Northern Quarter, recently.

I was lucky enough to be treated to the bottle by the evening’s host, who took the time to talk us through what to expect, the heritage, and the flavours to look out for. He then de-canted the wine for us, letting us taste it straight from the bottle (which had a closed and quite tart taste) before telling us to leave the wine untouched for ten minutes, to allow it to breathe.

The result? A juicy, fruity wine with rich aromas of plums, blackberries and cherries. Full-bodied and smooth.

This experience is one I think can be likened to Theresa May’s term so far. Taking on the role of Prime Minister at such a sensitive time required her to be strong and ‘full-bodied’, stating her intent and making her mark from day one.

Admittedly, she has been quite closed and guarded in her plans. No-one predicted the restructure of departments, no-one predicted Hinkley, and people are still struggling to predict what the next step will be in terms of Brexit. Like the wine, May's inaugural term in office has been rather 'closed' at first taste.

Having to wait for the wine to breathe at Bakerie was torturous. We could smell the wine, we were thirsty, and - after it had been built up so much by our host - we were desperate to try it.

When we finally got to taste it after ten minutes of patience, we were blown away by how luscious and flavourful it was. It lived up to all expectations and even exceeded them.

And I believe this will also be true of Theresa May. 

Patience is a virtue, and sometimes a little uneasy waiting can give/deliver the best results.

Leave it alone to breathe!

I for one will be waiting impatiently for the Autumn Statement, comforting myself with the hope that it will be just as satisfying as that Malbec. 

Fingers crossed that the 2014 Famiglia Bianchi Argentinian Malbec will be on the Bakerie wine list soon!

Enjoy!

The Labour leadership, Corbyn and Chianti

Tasting Notes: Most famously known as Hannibal Lecter’s beverage of choice, Chianti is a mysterious red wine from Tuscany. Characterised by its spicy, smoky and fruity flavour, it is perfect with a plate of cured meats (especially prosciutto) or… liver.

In a country where there are arguably only two real contenders for politcal power, Labour have not done the best job in proving themselves to be a viable alternative to the current Conservative government, seemingly cannibalising itself with factious in-fighting.

Owen Smith’s leadership challenge against Jeremy Corbyn, instead of allowing the party to debate ideological issues and thrash out a policy both sides can get behind, has instead further exposed the divisions, weakening the party from  inside like an apple with a rotten core.

Jeremy Corbyn remains the favourite; according to the most recent YouGov poll for The Times, he is which claimed Corbyn was likely to receive 62% of the vote, compared to Smith’s 38%, seeming to confirm the ongoing prediction that Corbyn will win.

A complex character, Corbyn has completely transformed Labour from a weak and arguably aimless party, under Miliband, to a bi-polar party which suddenly has a split personality, neither of which seems to be much better than Ed. Whoever wins, there is the very real possibility that a chunk of the membership will fall away which will be a tragedy for the party's prospects in the next General Election.

But can this be prevented?

Writing for The Guardian, Anne Perkins thinks it can, commenting: “Whoever wins has to be magnanimous. As a matter of urgency, the party must sort out the mess it has created.”

And it has created a mess. The fact that the clashes have resulted in threats that the Labour Party conference will need to be cancelled, not due to any external threat, but because no security firm would agree to take on the role of keeping the peace, shows that differences in opinion are not merely superficial and ‘forgivable’.

This amount of passion and desire for a greater Labour future is admirable, but the party is self-imploding; if they can’t rule themselves how on earth are they going to run a country that is still divided by the EU referendum?

The issue does not just lie with a differences in policy, but also with the fact that Corbyn is so demonised and disliked. By contrast, Owen isn’t hugely disliked by the media, he is just tolerated as the better of two evils.

Speaking in The Independent, Charlie Hammonds makes a very good point in his article entitled “I’m a reluctant Corbyn voter because Owen Smith isn’t the Labour Hero any of us want or need”.

He comments that: “Smith does not seem to inspire anyone on the basis of his policy, charisma or his vision of a new, progressive Britain. Instead, those who believe Corbyn has ripped apart their beloved party, united in desperation, are willing to turn to anyone in their time of need and make them their hero.”

Labour needs a leader which the whole party can get behind if they stand any chance of winning the next election. While the Conservatives may be tainted by Brexit, at least Theresa May seems to be doing a good job of uniting the party behind her, remaining realistic and balanced in her approach to leaving the EU.

In her first major interview since becoming Prime Minister, Theresa May warned Andrew Marr that Brexit would not be “plain sailing” but that she was committed to tackling the process rather than kicking it “into the long grass”. May's comments on PMQ's today seemed to suggest total transparency was on on the agenda but nevertheless, her commitment to leading the country forward in a decisive and pragmatic way still seems to be at odds with what is occurring in the Labour camp right now.

Luckily for Labour, May has ruled out the possibility of a snap election. 

The most recent media blow to Corbyn has actually underlined that divided support continues to do more harm than good.

For those who are unaware, this involved the reggae pop group UB40 (famous in the 80s and 90s) whose original members recently voiced support for Corbyn. A humorously drawn parallel, identified by the media, found that the second generation of the band, formed after the original group split, have declined to support Corbyn’s bid seeming to mirror the current situation quite well: old Labour in support, but after a bitter split (about Corbyn’s performance in the EU Referendum) the reformed group now wants to go in a ‘different direction’.

So what does the future hold for Labour?

When the results of the ballot are announced on 24^th September, the immediate aftermath will be crucial. If Corbyn can convince the disenchanted that he will be a real competitor in the next General Election not the scruffy, opinionated and grumpy man portrayed by the media, Labour may have a chance.

The problem is... he is scruffy and opinionated! I have also yet to see a picture of him smiling.

Why Chianti?

As mentioned in the tasting notes, Chianti is famous for being the beverage of choice for the most well know fictional cannibal, Hannibal Lecter and it does seem that the Labour Party is cannibalising itself. I am in no way trying to paint Corbyn (or Smith for that matter) as a psychotic serial killer, but what they are both doing the party is gruesome and difficult to watch.

However, this is as far as the analogy goes, as Hannibal is also a sophisticated and charming character… I can’t extend that compliment to either Corbyn or Smith, unfortunately.

From a wine-centric view point, the making of Chianti is a wine which has various styles. The flexibility of blends, which constitute a Chianti, accounts for its variability in taste, and so it is with Labour at the moment.

The taste can vary from floral and herbaceous to deep and smoky, with spicy undertones. Owen seems to represent a lighter version of Corbyn, offering a palatable alternative that can be drunk every day. Corbyn is more like an aged Chianti; it has a taste of tobacco and leather, 

In this great analysis of Chianti by the website, WineFolly, I don’t think Corbynites could deny him being compared to anything else:

“There will be a little coarseness and tartness on the palate, but these aren’t flaws, they are [just] classic characteristics.”

Enjoy!

The Pay Gap and Prosecco

Tasting Notes: Prosecco is the go-to, affordable alternative to Champagne when you want to celebrate and is now the tipple of choice for many women across the UK. It has that air of class and sophistication while still remaining accessible to everyone.

Before I scare all those male readers away who are expecting a feminist attack on the horrors of a misogynistic business world, don't fret. That is not the point of this post.

As a young women starting out in my career, I am very aware of the gender pay debate. Having been educated at a same-sex independent school, I am also well versed in the 'dominant female' mindset and therefore even more vulnerable to the lures of feminism.

However, I would like to approach this topic in a more neutral manner and try to steer clear of the 'boy-bashing' which sometimes follows from an analysis of gender inequality.

Having said that, I do understand the issue.

According to the government report "Opportunities and outcomes in education and work: Gender effects" released in November last year by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills; "male workers are paid on average 19% more than female counterparts in almost all areas of the workforce."

The report goes on to say that: "women working in financial and insurance sectors, as well as other professional roles, are worst affected in the gap in pay - with some earning almost 40% less than men."

Admittedly, this isn't an ideal situation.

However, since the report was released the percentage difference has reduced to 18% continuing the downward trend from a 28% gap in 1993 and 23% in 2003. So that's a good thing, right?

A recent article in The Week entitled  "The gender pay gap UK: How bad is it?"  argued that the headlines mask some underlying variables which may be exaggerating the improvements. It claimed that the reason the headline gap has shrunk is due to women "becoming more educated and so able to work in better-paid jobs."

So maybe access to education is the issue here, not gender bias?

Think again.

Another one of the 'legitimate' reasons for the gender pay gap is childcare. Now this is a very flammable topic and even I was slightly put out by this comment in The Week's article, from Ben Southwood of the Adam Smith Institute:

"There is a gender pay gap, but the entirety of it is determined by 'legitimate' factors" Continuing on to say that "women leave the labour market during crucial years, setting them substantially back in labour market terms. That is, the gap comes down to women's choices."

I don't know why, but that last sentence did make me wince - "The gap comes down to women's choices." Ouch!

So is the gender pay gap simply the result of life choices? Can women realistically have a career and a family?

There is an army of career women out there who claim you can - and will shoot down any man who dares to suggest otherwise.

Radhika Sanghani, speaking in The Telegraph  proclaimed that it is just as much a man's job to help raise a family as it is a woman's, subverting the age-old family unit stereotype so characteristic of idealistic 50s suburbia. But this is not the 1950s.

Sanghani blamed the government for maintaining this status quo by having "lumped together equality, women and childcare, suggesting that all are 'women's issues."

She concludes that "childcare is not a woman's issue. It's everyone's issue and if we want to end the pay gap, it needs to be treated that way."

The Government has introduced a shared parental leave (SPL) scheme but the uptake has been extremely low, with only 4% of those eligible taking part. Admittedly this is probably due more to a need for economic security than a neglect of responsibility.

So what can be done?

From April next year, more than 250 employers in Britain will be required by law to publish gender pay gap statistics, hopefully shaming those who are guilty into action. But I can't help wondering if a diversity of skills, career choice and deciding to have a child are legitimate reasons for a pay gap.

I would hate to be a traitor to my sex here, but if this was a gender neutral issue and a higher paying job was given to a worker with the right skills, who was also prepared to work overtime rather than insist on part-time (should circumstances require it), I would accept that reasoning.

If the gender skills gap was down to the education system I would be more likely to voice some angst, but I can't see that it is. Schools offer STEM subjects regardless of sex. It's uptake that's the issue, and that is  down to choice, not availability. Plus, the recent GCSE and A-Level results showed, yet again, that girls achieve better results than boys.

Is it therefore 'choice'  which causes that 18% gap? Is Ben Southwood right?

Maybe he is. The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings: 2015 released by the ONS last year commented that their findings on gender pay disparity were not actually based on "comparable jobs", claiming that the figures were "affected by factors such as the proportion of men and women in different occupations. For example, a higher proportion of women work in occupations such as administration and caring, that tend to offer lower salaries." 

The report also pointed out that part-time workers also get paid less than full-time workers and, once again, these are occupations that tend to have a female majority.

I think this is a very important point. Data has a habit of getting manipulated to fit certain conclusions, and while there is undoubtedly a pay gap in the upper-echelons of the business world - and I am fully behind this being exposed by the Government -it is not as pervasive in society as the media may claim.

It IS a woman's choice to have children, it IS her choice about what subjects to study, career to pursue, and how many hours to work and, unfortunately, these are factors that result in a lower salary, purely due to the demand for certain skills and cost of labour per hour.

This is not to say that women do not deserve the same pay as men when doing the exactly the same job, for the same number of hours. That is actually illegal under the Equality Act 2010.

In terms of women working in male dominated arenas, even politics is starting to diversify. We now have a female Prime Minister, a female home secretary and (I hope to high heaven) we will have a female President of the United States. But could this be down to choice, too?

Politics is male-dominated due to the personal qualities required to work in that environment. You must be on call 24/7, authoritative, thick-skinned and slightly arrogant. Some women are, but I can't help feeling those attributes are more inherently male.

Perhaps a lot of men do not choose a career in politics simply because it is not suited to their personality and I believe that is true of women, too. I am not ignoring the fact that a 'boy club' mentality does still exist, but the fact that there is a female presence now may result in a cultural shift - we can only hope so.

  The bottom line is that we should not be rejoicing because women are in these positions of power, but because they have earned the right to be there, just like any man would have done, and it was their choice.

It should not be about 'girl power' it should be about 'people power'.

The #HeforShe campaign is a perfect example of 'people power' over 'girl power'. We should be working together to reach fairness in the work place, championing people who seek equality, be they men or women, giving the jobs to those with the right skills and experience.

But I also think a certain amount of sensibility and realism should be employed (pun intended) when confronting this issue. Choices made by people will affect their career, and therefore pay, regardless of gender.

We are definitely not still suffering from the same kind of gender imbalance that was rife in the 50s. The situation is improving, and hopefully the upcoming government policy changes will shine a light on any issues that need addressing,


Why Prosecco?

Wikipedia defines Prosecco as a "less expensive alternative to champagne" and let's be honest, if given the choice we would all rather sip Champagne. But sometimes circumstances are not conducive to a champagne-lifestyle. And so it is with the gender pay gap.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), it's a woman's biological privilege to be a carrier of children. No man can take this job on. Yes, after the birth a great Dad will share some responsibility; but what if his main responsibility is to support the family while the mother wants to stay at home with the child? Circumstances mean that you can't always 'have it all', it's too expensive.

Prosecco has also acted as a great equalizer: it is a 'classy' beverage we can all indulge in. This is how the world of work should be. It should be an arena where everybody is on a level playing-field where males and females can pursue any career they wish to, achieving equal pay and opportunity for the same work.

A glass of fizz is no longer a privilege only accessible to the elite, it is now available to everybody and in most sectors this is also now true in terms of gender opportunity.

Finally, Prosecco grows stale with time, it does not ferment in the bottle. It should be drunk as young as possible to prevent wastage. In some ways I think this should be a message to all young women starting out in their career. If you make the most of the opportunities you have now, have an awareness of your value (using this handy little app), and continue to work hard, it should stop you getting stale over time.

And while the gender pay gap is not an issue to be ignored, I think we should remember not to let it take the fizz out of our Bellinis.

Metro Bank and Merlot

Tasting Notes: Enjoy with the Merlot you buy when you have had a bad day and you can’t be bothered to find a more exciting alternative.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) have been busy bees recently, firstly offering their recommendations to OFGEM about how best to increase competition in the energy market, releasing the stranglehold of the ‘Big Six’, and more recently turning their attention to the banking sector to see what mischief they can cause there.

This latter pursuit is the subject of this week’s blog. You have probably heard about Metro Bank, the new kid on the banking block, hoping to win over part of the 77% market share the traditional big four currently enjoy.

(NB: The big four are: Lloyds Banking Group, Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC and Barclays)

After seeing Metro Bank’s meteoric rise to success, other banks have entered the ring, prompting the CMA to step in and see what they can do to help them along a bit.

The report entitled “Making banks work harder for you” was published on 9th August, claiming to have identified the reasons why the big banks monopolise the market and offering recommendations for reform.

The CMA reported that; “Essentially, the older and larger banks, which still account for the large majority of the retail banking market, do not have to work hard enough to win and retain customers, and it is difficult for new and smaller providers to attract customers.”

So why do smaller banks find it so hard to win-over personal account holders and small businesses? Ultimately, it is a combination of ignorance, apathy and a massive teenage-like case of ‘can’t be bothered’.

The findings seem to conclude that a lack of knowledge about the ease and benefits of switching provider is the main reason only 3-4% of customers transfer to a different bank each year.

The supposed ‘difficulty of switching’ is a myth that the report seeks to dispel by noting that there is a Current Account Switch Service (CASS) currently available which seeks to make it easy for customers to change banks but, due to a lack of awareness, it is under used, making a transfer long and onerous in most cases.

The report also hopes to raise awareness of the fact that personal customers could be saving an average of £92 a year, and business customers £80 a year, if they switched providers. For overdraft users, the savings could be even higher: £180 on average, due to the hidden charges many overdraft accounts contain.

While ignorance of a better option is one excuse, and in some respects one that can be forgiven, a reason that is less easy to understand is the identification of a sort of 'loyalty'. A characteristic especially prevalent among small business account holders.

It was found that many business owners tended to have their business account at the same bank as their domestic account. This 'loyalty' and familiarity prevented them from shopping around due to the belief that it’s quicker and easier to open a business account if you stick with what you know. The big four currently hold 85% of small business accounts and grant 90% of small business loans. Metro Bank has been the only entrant into the SME banking market in recent years.

So the dominance of the major banks is not only a result of a lack of awareness, but also a lack of willingness to explore other options.

The perceived difficulty of moving banks, combined with an inability to easily compare what they have to offer, seems to lie at the heart of the matter.

So what have the CMA suggested? They’ve recommended a phone app.

Yep, that’s right: the main way to increase competition in banking is to introduce an Open Banking phone app which would allow personal account customers and small businesses to compare and manage numerous accounts, from different banks, via the secure sharing of data between banks and third parties.

This would be accompanied by a kind of glorified Net Promoter Score, where banks would be required to publish objective information on their quality of service, including whether or not customers would recommend the bank to their peers.

Combine this with the third recommended requirement, that banks should send out “suitable periodic and event-based prompts” when charges are altered or local branches close, and it is hoped that this enhanced transparency will encourage competition.

But will it?

Market watchdog Which? were one of the first to raise concerns, being quoted by the BBC as saying “it is questionable whether these measures will be enough.”

Concerns were also voiced over data security, with many asking whether the general public, let alone the banks, would accept such widespread data sharing.

And the challenger banks themselves? They branded it a major missed opportunity, failing to combat the disproportionate capital requirements and regulatory hurdles currently barring new entrants.

Without competition, the big banks will continue to hold a majority stake. But it is more than that: until customers take the leap and try something new, shaking off apathy and questioning loyalty, the status quo will not alter and no ‘app’ will change that.

Why Merlot?

Merlot is arguably one of the most popular red wine varieties in the current market. A flexible grape, it is one of the most widely-planted the world over, most notably in Bordeaux (France) and Chile. It is common, reliable and widely available.

When you’re in desperate need of a glass of vino, you can usually rest assured that a relatively cheap Merlot will be available on the shelves of any local supermarket, and you know you can just grab it and drink it with warm familiarity.

So it is with the big four banks.

They are always there, they are widely used, and they can be relied upon (generally) to do the job you ask of them. Yes, there is the odd 'duff' experience, but it doesn't stop you going back for more.For those for whom wine is not of paramount importance, Merlot is a name they know and one they can identify with. Again, it’s the same with banks: for those who are not particularly well acquainted with the particulars of the sector, the bank they (or their parents) have always banked with is an easy option that requires no real in-depth research.

A constant pruning of the vine is needed for Merlot to flourish, with reduced yields being rumored to result in a higher quality wine. It is also believed that the older the vine, the more characteristic the taste.

If we apply this to the CMA report, maybe then it is a good thing that the doors have not simply been flung wide open to new entrants. It could be a good idea to strip back the leaves and force the existing incumbents to expose themselves, forcing them to work harder, resulting in a lower yield but higher quality.

This may be taking the analogy too far… but next time you’re reaching for that ‘old faithful’ on the bottom shelf, ask yourself this - is there an option better suited to you out there? This app may help.

Enjoy!

Inflation Rates and Rioja

Tasting Notes: Enjoy with a nice Spanish Rioja Tempranillo, no need for a Reserva yet, it's still early days. Ideally find a 2014 vintage, a great year for the grape and also the last time inflation rates were as high as they are now. 

Yesterday saw the Office for National Statistics (ONS) release their July 2016 Consumer price inflation report, the first data set from the government covering the post-Brexit period. 

The Headline: A 0.6% increase means that inflation is now at its highest level since November 2014. 

Quick! Panic and blame Brexit, we'll all be penniless by Christmas!

No. Let's not panic, let's take a leisurely sip of wine and assess the situation.

Yes, sterling took a hit and yes, investor confidence is still down. But while the increase in inflation rates is undoubtedly the result of rising import costs, there are other factors in play.

When looking at the longer-term trends of inflation rate fluctuation, this 0.6% rise is minimal, and only seems high due to 2015 being a year of historically low inflation. Even the ONS made a point of stating that the rise is “still relatively low in the historical context.”

It’s still too early to speculate on the full impact Brexit will have on inflation, especially given the fact that ONS data is collected mid-month, so the vote to leave had only been decided 2-3 weeks previously. 

It was also only a month ago since The Spectator published an article entitled “Inflation is up. But don’t panic, it’s nothing to do with the Brexit”, calming fears that the 0.5% increase in June was a result of the vote to leave when, in fact, the data related to the period before the referendum had even occurred.

Mike Prestwood, head of prices at the ONS, even went so far as to say that “there was no obvious impact on today’s consumer price figures following the EU referendum results though the Producer Prices Index suggests the fall in exchange rate is beginning to push up import prices”. 

Admittedly, producer prices have risen by 0.3%, the fastest rate in 2 years, with the cost of raw materials also increasing by 3.3%.

But, wait! Could it be that the worst is over in terms of a declining exchange rate?

After the report was released, the pound rallied against the dollar, increasing by 1.3% to $1.3038. Could this suggest that sterling is starting a slow recovery?

Probably not, and it almost certainly does not mean we are 'out of the woods' in terms of post-referendum uncertainty. Future CPI data will give a better indication of the Brexit effect, a point confirmed by former monetary policy committee (MPC) member Andrew Sentence, now at PwC, who commented that “The big rise driven by a weak pound will take longer to come through – at least six to 12 months.”

Combine this with the Bank of England (BoE) warning that it is prepared to withstand a period of high inflation in order to stimulate growth and create jobs, this really is just the start of a necessary period of adjustment to the changing market conditions in which we now find ourselves.

Bringing it down to reality, what will this mean for the majority of us, in laymen’s terms?

1)     It’s worse news for savers, and those with pensions. With interest rates already at an all-time low (0.25%), an increase in prices is not going to help the situation.

2)     An increase in fuel prices led to a 1.6% increase in transport costs according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This is bad news for commuters as regulated train fares are set to rise again. The increase, determined by the old Retail Price Index (RPI), which always tends to be slightly higher than the CPI, means that, by January 2017, regulated rail fares will have increased by 1.9%!

3)     Real wages could suffer as employers struggle to match pay with rising prices. This will exacerbate the transport issue for commuters, as outlined above, and also put pressure on businesses, who will now need to balance an increase in import prices with a need to pay their workforce a living wage. However, with the BoE focusing on growth stimulation and job creation, the effect may be muted to some extent.

4)     And the worst news… alcohol is more expensive. Not only that, wine is to blame!! According to the ONS report, “the upward contribution came from alcoholic beverages” going on to say that “this was primarily due to prices for wine”. Damn it!

Why Rioja?

Well, Rioja is traditionally produced from a blend of various grapes and, similarly, this month’s inflation increase was caused by a blend of factors, namely depreciation of sterling and rising transport, alcohol and hospitality prices.

Rioja varieties are determined by how long they have left to age. Rioja is the youngest, spending less than a year in an oak aging barrel. Crianza is aged for two years, Reserva at least three and Gran Reserva has two oak barrel years followed by three in a bottle.

Given that it is still very early days post Brexit, the full maturity of the impact has yet to be reached, so stick with the baby for now. As a younger wine, it's also cheaper, which should help you out with the rising wine prices currently being experienced.

Rioja is an old grape with the earliest written evidence of its existence dating back to 873. Inflation must also be viewed in a historical context to get some real perspective on the situation.  

So there you have it, no need to panic, go pour yourself another glass.

Enjoy!

Follow my blog with Bloglovin

Welcome to Read-Whine

Tasting Notes: Enjoy this post with a light and fruity Beaujolais, served slightly chilled as an aperitif.

Welcome to Read-Whine, the blog where wine and current affairs blend together in perfect harmony, making the seemingly 'boring', bearable. 

Pairing opinion on the latest political, economic and business news with a suggested tipple, I created this blog to combine two of my greatest passions, believing that one truly does complement the other. 

I have been ghost writing about politics, economics, business and current affairs ever since I left University and I thought it was about time to write in my own voice. 

A self-confessed Millennial, I am well aware that the opinions held by one so young may not be held in such high esteem as those voiced by world leaders and successful CEO's, but hopefully after a glass or two of wine, that won't matter so much. 

Why Beaujolais?

Beaujolais is often described as a "white wine pretending to be red". A light, fruity wine best served slightly chilled as an aperitif or with a light snack.

I am just political ingénue, interested in current affairs, pretending to be an expert. This is a light introduction with a fruity undertone, a relaxed start to what I hope will be a rich and stimulating experience hereafter.

Enjoy!

Follow my blog with Bloglovin