Right-on Dave strikes again

Cameramong’s latest brain spasm, it seems, is to force companies to appoint women, showing once again that he has absolutely no understanding of the concept of freedom.

David Cameron warned that the UK’s inability to exploit women’s full potential as entrepreneurs was “failing our whole economy”.

Okay, this may be true, and I think we can take it as read that in an economy the size of Britain’s there will inevitably be a number of positions occupied by men which could have been done better by one of the female applicants for the job. However, that doesn’t mean that the answer is quotas because it’s just as certain that some of those positions could have been done better by one of the male candidates. Or someone who didn’t apply for the job at all because they were happy where they were. You see, Dave, companies try to get the best person for every job but if they were always successful then nobody would ever be fired, would they? Sometimes they get it wrong and very often the best person isn’t available anyway, but in any case if someone isn’t free to screw up then they’re not free full stop. Why not just let those companies run by misogynistic morons who insist on hiring less capable males over women because of the CEO’s rampant vagina-phobia carry on doing so, and let those who aren’t fussy about applicants’ sex hire those more capable women who were rejected by the vagina-phobes? In the long run the latter should become more successful and the former are more likely to go tits up (pun very much intended).

The Prime Minister is attending a summit in Stockholm to learn from countries such as Norway and Iceland, which have successfully introduced quotas to increase the number of women in boardrooms.

The wording of this sentence is extremely interesting. It says that they’ve successfully introduced quotas, not that the introduction of quotas has been an economic success, and since on a list of countries ranked by recent growth Norway and Iceland are both well behind even the poor performing UK I’m interested to hear what evidence there is that it’s made any bloody difference at all. If it was me, Dave, I’d be thinking of going to summits to learn from, oh, I don’t know, maybe the top four or five growing economies – Qatar, Singapore, Paraguay, India (yeah, that’s right, India which the DFID insist still need UK aid) and Taiwan – rather than countries ranked at 159 and 180. Out of 183. Christ’s sakes, Norway and Iceland aren’t even in the top five for Europe, though to be fair neither is the UK or anyone in the Eurozone, and the only EU member in the top 5 is Bulgaria – draw your own conclusions.

Government figures suggested that Britain’s slow progress was costing the economy more than £40 billion in lost potential each year, roughly equal to the defence budget.

Ah, and more corporate red tape will help, will it, Dave? Ideological state interference with the actual running of a business will do  more than clearing the way for the ones with the best business models, which I’d anticipate would probably include not giving a rip either way about the contents of senior employees’ underpants, to become successful? It’ll help more than reducing the tax burden on both businesses and their customers so that turnovers and profits can go up, businesses can expand and more jobs can be created? It’ll help more than doing something about the estimated £65 billion annual cost to the economy of Britain’s continued EU membership?

Mr Cameron said the Nordic-Baltic Summit would generate ideas for how Britain can “help women become entrepreneurs and take up leading positions in business”.

Electing a government that stopped screwing up the economy would be a terrific start. Just my 2¢.

A government policy paper, presented to the summit, estimated that if female entrepreneurship reached the same levels as in the US, “there would be 600,000 extra women-owned businesses, contributing an extra £42 billion to the economy”.

And ignoring the possibility, which I’m sure is vanishingly remote, that this figure of £42 billion (wasn’t it £40 billion a minute ago and what made it increase by 5% in a few paragraphs?) wasn’t just pulled out of someone’s arse at the Treasury, is the extra rate of female entrepreneurship in the United States because businesses there have federally imposed quotas for hiring females in senior positions along the lines you’re thinking of, Dave? Because if it’s not and the Obamarised US has no such law – which this 10 week old Forbes article suggests is the case – then it’s all pretty irrelevant, don’t you think?

Dave, you really are the most clueless twat Britain’s had for Prime Mentalist since… erm, well, since the last one.

Doomed. We’re all doooomed.

Advertisements

Posted on February 9, 2012, in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. The reason why there are so few members of the female sex among board level directors is primarily due to government instituted policies on maternity. Given the cost of maternity (both paying for someone who is away for up-to 1-year and also paying for a substitute), most small companies can simply not afford this and therefore don’t hire women.

    Since this represents 95% of the businesses by volume (but not by size) within the UK this distorts the economy by effectively driving women into the jobs where maternity is included as part of the overheads, be this as part of a massive multinational or a part of the functions of the state (e.g. Teaching, Hospitals, Civil Service, Local Government).

    If the state wishes to see more women directors, then it should remove the legislative barriers to them getting work in the first place. This means the removal of the burden of maternity regulations on micro-businesses (i.e. <10 employees) at the very least.

    • Hadn’t considered that but what you say makes sense, especially when a high powered position is also likely to be a high paying one. For some SMEs it could be deadly and a strong disincentive to hire a perfectly capable woman.

      PS – give it enough regulation and eventually nobody will hire anybody.

  2. Singapore forces men to waste 2 years of their lives + 6 weeks every 2 years preparing to fight a pointless war (pop. 4 million against 250 million potential invaders), so women already have an advantage in the workplace.

  3. Any talk about “quotas” reminds me of the film “Harrison Bergeron” (if you’ve never seen it, it depicts a future dystopia where EVERYONE MUST BE EQUAL, and so people are forced to wear headbands to slow down their brain activity, so that no-one is more intelligent than anyone else).

    Watching the film brought home the message that sometimes “equality” is not such a good thing.

    Anyway, hopefully there’ll be clamours to also have quotas for ethnicity and sexual orientation, and then after a few hands of Victimhood Poker gone bad it’ll dawn on people that the whole idea is basically stupid.

%d bloggers like this: