Gender balancing will not tackle issues of inequality

During the NUS National Conference 2013 earlier this week, a controversial topic was brought up and deliberated by delegates from universities across the UK. The issue was on ‘Gender Balancing’, and whether the NUS should adopt a policy where at least 50% of its executive and 50% of its student delegates are made up by women.

Motion 701 was being whispered around conference like a dirty word, one which was not spoken aloud for fear of debate and outcry. The debate itself lasted nearly an hour, with the delegates voting on the controversial motion to be decided by a secret ballot. In a narrow victory, delegates decided to vote against the motion.

There was no applause by the audience, in fact the situation in Sheffield City Hall was so hostile you felt like you were sitting in the middle of a Coalition cabinet meeting. People moaned about the result, others complained that the result was bad for women and female students.

If anything, I think the result was a good thing. The problem with gender balancing is that it does not solve anything. It just coats over the problem of gender inequality with a whitewash.

For those that don’t understand what gender balancing means, it’s the idea that we should set a quota for the number of women in an executive panel like the NUS, to make it more equal and fair for women. The subject has cropped up in the world of business, where efforts have been made to increase the number of women in company boardrooms.

Although I do believe that in this society, the hegemonic views of men in society have oppressed women for far too long, gender balancing in my view just isn’t the answer. We seem to be content on using women as a number, objectifying females to boost a figure on a spreadsheet in the name of equality.

The idea that selecting female candidates for roles such as the NUS on the basis that they’re a woman and not for their ideas is degrading. It doesn’t represent anything, it just proves that people are naïve about the benefits of gender balancing.

The arguments for motion 701 were that “discrimination and oppression in society often means women students are underrepresented”. This argument seems slightly ambiguous. If the argument is that society is oppressing women, surely we should be attacking society and the government to do more, rather than focus on putting more women in the boardroom. You need to get to the core of the problem to resolve it; voting for at least 50% of candidates to be women will only exacerbate the issue.

20^th century society has often put the man at the top of the food chain. But that is changing, the 21^st century is becoming more equal. Think about education results; more girls are consistently achieving higher marks then boys at school and college. During the Olympics, it was thefor their sporting triumphs and presenting styles. Over the last decade, women in politics have had a much bigger voice – Harriet Harman, Theresa May etc; all showing how women can achieve through their hard work and determination alone.

Even the NUS proved that their concerns about gender inequality are unfounded, a union where more than 50% of students are women. 3 out of the 6 executive members from the NUS elected by students this week were women, including our new NUS president Toni Pearce. They were picked for their policies and pledges, not to meet a quota. They were elected on merit, not sex.

Inequality is still apparent in our society, I certainly don’t deny that, but voting to elect people on their gender and not their policies is unequal. Voting for gender balancing by the NUS would have been a case of ‘ten steps back’ for women.

Lets look at raising the profile of women in society by working with businesses, in government and in education together, but also focusing on minority groups; ethnic minorities, disabled groups and the LGBT community. Positive change and campaigning will always prove more pivotal than a token woman sitting at the boardroom table.

Ed Balls: I'd cut VAT by Monday

Shadow chancellor Ed Balls has stated that he would “cut VAT by Monday” if Labour were back in power.

Speaking in Kent as he tours local micro businesses, the Labour MP claimed that cutting VAT was the best solution to helping the economy grow.

Speaking to Kieran Watkins, Mr Balls said: “It is clear with the economy flat lining that we will lower VAT as soon as possible.

“If we were in government today, I would lower VAT by Monday.”

The declaration by Mr Balls comes after the latest GDP (Gross Domestic Profit) forecasts show the UK economy has shrunk by 0.3%, raising fears of a triple dip recession.

With major retailers like Jessops and HMV going under, Mr Balls warned that the future remained bleak for the UK’s economy.

“Times are really hard for every retailer at the moment, particularly hard for retailers on the High Street such as Jessops or HMV.”

Last year, more than 580 companies in England and Wales fell into administration in the last three months, with big names like Comet and Clinton Cards being the big fatalities of the High Street.

In total, 3,834 companies went into liquidation in 2012. 276 into receiverships and 151 entered into company voluntary arrangements.

But a local Conservative councilor in Medway dismissed Ed Balls’ plans to cut VAT.

Mike O’Brien, councilor for Rainham Central, said: “Having been part of a Labour Government that left the country almost bankrupt I would pay no heed to what he says.”

The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Customer Contact for Medway also said: “He is now in opposition and can make grand statements that he doesn't have to substantiate.

Economic advisor for the British Chamber of Commerce, Steve Hughes, explained how much it would cost the taxpayer to lower the VAT.

“Taking the fiscal credibility point first, the cost to the Exchequer of changing the standard rate of VAT by one per cent is approximately £5bn a year.

“In other words, reducing the rate from 20 per cent to its previous 17.5 per cent would cost in the region of £12.5bn.”

In a statement from the Treasury, the department insisted the 20% VAT was helping, rather than hindering the economy.

“The VAT increase raises a significant amount of revenue and is therefore an important part of the Government’s deficit reduction plan.

“Reducing the rate of VAT would undermine the Government’s fiscal strategy, risking a loss of credibility that could have a far larger negative impact on the economy than the positive economic impact that might otherwise be expected as a result of a VAT cut.”

Picture taken by Kieran Watkins

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls comes to Medway

With our High Street’s disappearing and businesses going bust, business is far from usual in Kent, so can shadow chancellor Ed Balls save local retailers?  Kieran Watkins joins him on a tour of businesses in Kent

“Times are really hard for every retailer at the moment” was the warning from shadow chancellor Ed Balls yesterday, after visiting local businesses in Kent.

Meeting owners in The Vintage Dove ‘shabby chic’ store in Elm Court, Capstone Road, Gillingham, the Labour MP for Morley and Outwood stressed the importance of small, micro businesses in the current economic climate.

Mr Balls said: “The image of small businesses is not important enough. We need a different way of doing things to make things work for small businesses.”

Figures released by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) show that in 2012, small businesses accounted for 47% of private sector employment, and 34.4% of turnover.

But despite the promising figures, small business owners still feel under pressure, with no one to turn too.

“You feel like you’re on your own, you don’t have the support of the banks,” said Stephen Clarke, 44, owner of The Vintage Dove.

Mr Clarke set up his vintage gift and furniture business from his home, with help from business partner Stephanie Nicolson, 35.

The business started as an internet retailer, and has since expanded, moving into its first business premises on December 1, 2012.

But despite their success, the couple said: “Small businesses are the backbone of the country, yet we need support and help from local government and the banks to survive.”

By his own admission, the shadow chancellor agreed that banks were not doing enough to help small businesses.

“Twenty years ago people thought about going to the bank for help an support on lending.”

“But times have changed, we [businesses] would not go to them now,” Mr Balls admitted.

Labour councilor Tristan Osborne, of the Luton and Wayfield ward, attacked Medway council for not assisting local businesses more.

“Micro businesses are an example of a business which has built up from nothing. But these businesses need more support.

“Medway needs to improve; local councilors do have a responsibility to help.”

Listening to the concerns of Vintage Dove and others, Mr Balls suggested that farmers markets and community projects would lead to more customers heading to the High Street.

“Farmers markets and community projects are not just a shopping experience,” he said in front of business leaders from companies including Produced in Kent.

“Making families comfortable and putting them at ease is the way to building a service and gaining customer loyalty.”

The shadow chancellor praised the work of Produced in Kent, jokily saying that “produced in Surrey or produced in Hertfordshire isn’t quite the same as produced in Kent.”

“Produced in Kent is a big opportunity, it says a big thing about the quality of goods.”

Produced in Kent was formed in 2005, and was formerly known as the Kentish Fare. A not-for-profit organisation, the project is run by Hadlow School and Kent County Council, and aims to “champion and support the growth, development and future of the food and drink sector in Kent.”

 In an unprecedented move, Ed Balls praised the work of Conservative-controlled Kent County Council, stating that KCC have “always been innovative” when it comes to business.

“They have always believed in business and believed in public service.”

Other points raised by business owners included the growing problem with trying to employ members of staff.

One business owner said it was a “minefield to employ”, as businesses struggle to understand the complicated rules and guidelines surrounding wages, taxes and legislation.

Other ideas raised to promote local businesses included internet advertising, with businesses calling for the government to launch specialist websites dedicated to promoting local shops.

Mr Clarke said: “It would be great if the government had a website supporting and advertising local businesses.”

Mr Balls backed the idea, stating that social networking and online advertising was “just as important” as setting up shop on the High Street.

“The internet has led to shops moving off the High Street.

“Being based on the High Street is not as important anymore.”

With the meeting coming to and end, Labour’s Vince Maple, Chatham Central councillor, praised the meeting for “making the voices of small businesses in Kent heard”.

“It is clear that we want to see the economy growing, and micro businesses will make the economy grow.”

By Kieran Watkins

Pictures taken by Kieran Watkins

Student sent apology from halls provider Liberty Quays

Liberty Quays has issued an apology to a disgruntled resident following reports of allegations regarding false charges

(written by Kieran Watkins for The Medwire)

As reported in the Medwire last weekend, Business IT student Alex Zarach had been charged for administration payments from Liberty Quays after they claimed he had made missed his rent payments.
However, in letters obtained by the Medwire, Alex and management from the halls, owned by Liberty Living, had already agreed weeks before the installment was due, that Alex would delay his payments to coincide with his student loan payment.

Both parties had signed the form to agree this was the case, with Alex paying the first instalment on September 24, 2012.

Liberty Quays staff however posted a letter to Alex a few days after the payment was made, claiming Alex had not paid his rent and that there would be a £30 administration fee for sending the letter.
Pointing out that it had already been agreed with previous management – signed by Duty Manager Alison Lidster – that he would pay the first instalment later, staff admitted the mistake but refused to drop the administration charges, sending him another letter claiming for an extra £10.
Following complaints made by Alex’s family and lawyer, Liberty Living has since emailed an apology to Alex, apologising for the mistakes made by staff at Liberty Quays and dropping all charges.
In an email sent from Mark Moulding at Liberty Living, Mr Moulding said:
“I would like to apologize once more for sending you the letter and would like to take this opportunity to reassure you that you that Liberty Quays have not applied any late payment fees to your account.”

Mc Donalds to create 80 jobs in Kent

Fast food restaurant McDonalds has announced plans to create 80 positions in Kent.

The company, which runs over 1,200 outlets in Britain and Ireland, is set to create 2,500 new posts throughout the UK.

30% of the jobs are expected to go to first time workers, with over 50% of positions being created for workers under the age of 25, although it is unknown which areas in Kent will benefit.

Press Officer for Mc Donalds, Kate McGown, said: “We can’t give a projection at this stage. Due to planning regulations, it is unknown where new restaurants will be. We are constantly on the search for new areas and opportunities.”

Stuart Todd, from Job Centre Plus, said: “Increases in any new jobs is a good thing, providing confidence for the wider UK economy.”

The news comes after McDonalds applied to Medway Council for planning permission to extend the Medway Valley Park branch of Mc Donalds, in Gillingham.

Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

*article was written as part of my reporting & writing portfolio at the University of Kent

The end of the press baron

If this whole phone hacking scandal has taught me anything, it's that the end has come for the once prestigious, dangerous and often completely mad press barons.

For centuries, the press and most of the media in our country has been run by a selected few, majority men, from an East London office overlooking the city, or somewhere more exotic.

Or, in Rupert Murdoch's case, running his company, one would presume, from space. Because it transpires that Mr Murdoch - the Australian media magnate, who owns News Corporation, one of the worlds biggest media conglomerates - despite having his fingers in practically every country, fails to know what goes on behind the scenes of one of his companies.

Yes, the story of the year has seen a whole inquiry, international criticism and millions of settlements hit the news, all down to one man. But this one man and his family fail to acknowledge any of it. They, it seems, had no idea it was going on.

The ongoing Leveson inquiry will probably uncover the real truth behind the whole fiasco, but what I wonder is, when did the media barons take a step back from their empires and stop caring?

Way back at the end of the 19th century, the media landscape was controlled by the printed press. Newspaper owners were scary characters, not unfamiliar to those of today, but they played a much bigger role in the newsroom.

Take Lord Northcliffe for example. The proprietor was running the most successful paper of the 19th century, The Times, and later started the Daily Mail. He was notorious for harassing his staff and shaped the entire content of his papers, including the layout.

He even famously told his staff 'to find one murder a day, or else!'

Of course, behaviour like this would not be tolerated in today's society, but it goes to show just how far things have come. Northcliffe was there in the office at 5am, he had the knowledge and expertise to write, produce and print the newspaper.

And he wasn't alone. Other famous proprietors - Lords Beaverbrook, Camrose and Kemsley - were all the same, and at the time, were producing some of the best quality papers of that era.

But sadly, this isn't the case now. Media companies are bigger now, and the media owners, it seems, have less control on their companies then they did in the past.

Maybe Murdoch could learn something from them? Or is it a bit too late now. I mean, he isn't getting any younger, and no way near ready to admit the truth. But it just goes to show, that despite the advancements in the media and the availability of news, we could still learn a thing or two from the forgotten world of the press baron.

Pictures courtesy of Wikipedia

Arriva invests in Medway & Kent

Travel company Arriva has announced a £600,000 improvement to the bus network in Medway.

The improvements, to bus route 116, will see five brand new buses fitted with free Wi-Fi, along with ongoing improvements to the bus network.

At a recent opening ceremony, the Major of Medway – the councillor Ted Baker - and other guests including Medway council members and representatives attended the launch of the new buses at the Universities of Medway campus in Chatham.

The improvements, part of an 8 year project which has seen Arriva spend more than £14million on new buses, includes an investment to provide free Wi-Fi on the buses.

Richard Lewis, regional press manager for Arriva, said: “This is the first kind of service to happen in the area. People who use a laptop or have a smart phone can use the service, which is completely free.”

The investment will provide a brand new look for the buses, which has seen the route renamed as the ‘X-BUS 116’. Eye catching vinyls will provide a fresh new look for the buses, along with more-comfortable seats and environmentally-friendly engines.

Arriva’s Managing Director, Heath Williams, said: “I’m delighted that we have once again been able to make a major investment in new buses for the Medway Towns.”

The 116 route runs between Chatham and Hempstead Valley, serving the universities, Mid Kent College, Gillingham town centre, Medway Maritime Hospital and Rainham on the way.

The free Wi-Fi has also been introduced on the 101 service between Maidstone and Medway, with the company planning to expand the service in the near future.

“We want to see how this goes before we look to expand the service,” Richard Lewis said. “We’re waiting for feedback.”

For full details of the 116 timetable, call 0844 800 4411 or view the timetable online at www.arrivabus.co.uk.

Pictures courtesy from Wikipedia

*a piece I submitted as part of my portfolio at the University of Kent

Clinton Cards, with sympathy

The announcement last week that the UK's biggest card retailer Clinton Cards was to file for administration came after quite a year for High Street closures.

With Peacocks, Game Group, Pumpkin Patch and many others, the High Street has been rocked by falling sales due to a lack of consumer confidence, with the public consumption hitting record lows.

Yet Clinton Cards, surely, would be OK? Everyone needs a greetings card, and with very few card shops on the High Street - Card Fair and others have all closed over the years - you'd think Clinton Cards would be safe.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Despite employing over 8,000 staff in more than 700 stores across its Clintons and Birthday chains, Clintons has been hit by falling sales and heavy losses.

Yet other card stores have flourished in recent times. Paperchase and Scribbler, more up-market card shops, have reported strong sales in recent months, whereas discount retailer Card Factory has continued to rapidly expand across the country. Both stores offer varying products, and are popular with customers. With Paperchase, you know it's expensive but it's good quality. With Card Factory, it's cheap and does the  job.

Which left Clintons in the middle. And that's where the problems lie; Clintons just doesn't fit in with the demands of today's culture. It's card lines seem to have dwindled in recent years as it favours on other products, such as gifts and wrapping paper. On a recent visit to my local shop, a big High Street Store in Alton, Hampshire, I was surprised to see that the shop floor space has decreased, as had the ranges. Card lines have been reduced, the gift wrap section has expanded yet the party section had disappeared.

And it seems that despite the loss of products, prices have increased. To get a decent card in Clintons, you have to pay around £2.99. £2.99 is a lot for a card which is pretty similar to all their other cards. There's nothing really special about their ranges, they don't grab me as high quality and as a result, you don't bother buying anything there.

Clintons cited supermarkets and online retailers as the reasons for its decline, but in reality, I think it's been a long time coming. It had started to regenerate its business, with a new look, improved layout and extended range. But it's all a little too late.

Although the loss of jobs and shops will be disastrous, there's nothing really surprising here.  I hope that a buyer is sought, but until then, it's 'comiserations' and 'with sympathy' for Clintons.

Pictures courtesy of Wikipedia

Is Vince Cable the only honest politician in Cabinet?

I feel rather sorry for Vince Cable. Throughout the recent Leveson inquiry, Mr Cable has remained quiet. A defeated champion of the people, he was one of the first people to criticise the Murdoch's, yet was hastily condemned by ministers and the newspapers over his actions.

It was way back in late 2010 that Cable's honesty got the better of him. Only six months into his role as Business Secretary for the coalition government, the Liberal Democrat was set up by journalists from The Daily Telegraph who posed as his constituents and arranged a meeting with Mr Cable. Undercover, the journalists asked questions which Mr Cable answered openly and honestly.

One of the questions Cable answered regarded the current bid by News Corporation, founded and chaired by Rupert Murdoch, to takeover the satellite broadcaster BSkyB, for which it has a stake in. Mr Cable's role as Business Secretary means that he is in charge of takeover's, including media affairs. Offering an un-bias review into the takeover, the Business Secretary is meant to examine all the evidence for/ against the takeover, with an objective stance.

Which is where Mr Cable's views got in the way, jeopardising his objectivity. Speaking to whom he thought were his constituents, Mr Cable told the undercover journalists that he had "declared war on Mr Murdoch", and that "I think we are going to win."

The resulting furore over his comments resulted in him losing his responsibility for media affairs, with the review into the BSkyB takeover being referred to Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. There were even calls for him to be sacked from his position as Business Secretary.

Now fast-forward to April 2012 and it seems similar circumstances are occurring again, this time with Jeremy Hunt. Before the takeover was abandoned following revelations of phone hacking at News International (the owners of titles including The Sun and the now defunct News of the World), it was rumoured that Jeremy Hunt would accept the takeover. The Conservative party have always been firm friends with the Murdoch's, as the Leveson inquiry has revealed, and with Mr Hunt's strong stance against the BBC, it would seem appropriate to accept the takeover. After all, BSkyB is creating billions of pounds for the UK economy, whereas the government are pumping money into the BBC. If it wasn't for the phone hacking allegations and calls from Ofcom for the review to be delayed, he would probably have accepted the takeover.

So the revelations that Jeremy Hunt was said to have an 'improper realtionship' with News Corporation following a series of leaked emails between the Mr Hunt's adviser and a PR adviser for News Corp came at no surprise. This is the man who didn't bother sending the BSkyB bid to the Competition Commission or listen to the calls from Ofcom to abandon the bid. In fact, it wasn't until after the phone hacking scandal came to light that the bid was rejected by the government, despite many years of allegations surrounding phone hacking being public knowledge.

It's fair to say his incompetence and bias in favour of the Murdoch empire has significantly damaged his reputation, and yes calls have been made by the opposition for Mr Hunt to resign. Yet not to the same extent as when calls were made for the resignation of Mr Cable.

Now I don't tend to think that two wrongs make a right, but in this case, wasn't Vince Cable right all along? He was cornered into admitting what he really thought, which in a situation like a constituency meeting, is perfectly acceptable. It's the public's right to hear the truth, and that's exactly what Vince Cable gave them.

In fact, the Press Complaints Commission agreed. They found that the Daily Telegraph had not acted in the public interest. It later emerged that the two undercover journalist's had been links to News International. A coincidence perhaps?

Vince Cable merely told the truth. Maybe it did undermine his objectivity, but I commend him. He had the guts to speak the truth to stand up against Mr Murdoch. Fast forward to 2012, and now all the politicians are doing it.

So following an interview with Sky this weekend, where he said he feels 'vindicated by BSkyB', maybe we should be praising Mr Cable for being an honest politician. He was right all along.

Pictures courtesy of Wikipedia