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!