Lawslot

An interesting five minutes driving home late yesterday, listening to Louise Bamfield of the Fabian Society debating about chavs on the World Tonight. She was there to put Tom Hampson’s argument, from his article in the latest Fabian Review, that we have to stop using the word ‘chav’. Then this morning an article in the FT by Emma Jacobs, Move over chavs, here is a pikey (the latter apparently now the insult-du-jour, according to a King’s College language consultant referred to by Jacobs)

I don’t agree with Hampson that using ‘chav’ ’betrays a deep and revealing level of class hatred’. I do agree that it is a deeply unpleasant expression. Trying to find the discussion on the BBC website, I first found a 2005 article, Charvers, which shows that things have not moved on much in the past three years.

And equally thought provoking post, Britain’s social recession, by Matthew Taylor in his RSA blog yesterday,

This extreme level of social pessimism [found in the countries of old Europe] is accompanied by a rejection of structural explanations of disadvantage. Whilst there is growing resentment at the very rich, people are more and more inclined to say that the poor have only themselves to blame. This is not fertile territory for developing a new agenda for social solidarity and action.

The figures on expectations of growing inequality are particularly stark. One of the other points made by Roger Liddle is that education – which many progressives hoped would be a driver of social mobility and inclusion – has actually become a major driver of social polarisation. The reason for this is simply that the wages available to those lacking higher education are falling, and will fall even faster now hard times and higher unemployment rates are here again.

Making education a force for inclusion and opportunity will require more than a further cranking up of an increasingly problematic standards agenda. We need to ask what education is for and we need a system which is not about finding our whether children are able but how they are able and how their abilities can be developed.

The eldest is now back in the UK, after Berlin and Milan, and living in Hackney. Just around the corner, it seems, from one of the mad mullahs, so lots of police activity. The day before yesterday she managed to lock herself in the bathroom. It took 20 minutes and the Fire Brigade to release her: they were as surprised as we were to learn that the bathroom door had a deadlock. It makes you wonder about the previous tenants. Anyway, no harm done and at least she had her dressing gown with her (her mother’s first thought).

Yesterday evening her front door bell rang. There was one of the boys in blue. They were making house to house enquiries about three “parked” cars. Not, as the eldest immediately thought, to caution her for wasting the Fire Brigade’s time! I doubt that Red Watch complained.

An interesting meeting this morning with Bill Wells of 2.0 Ltd. An opportunity for gossip and information. And a lovely idea, that the Digital company is the woollen mill of the 21st century: a few very clever (and rich) people running it; and a vast number of people simply working for them. Mrs Gaskell, you should be living at this hour.

Whingeing about the dire state of the economy with a good friend, who is the chairman of a major UK accountancy group, he told me of a recent dinner he and his wife had attended somewhere in the West Country. The property developer sat next to his wife told her, in all seriousness, that he had just bought an estate in the Welsh Marches, to which he was imminently retiring, because he expected social breakdown and riots on the streets of London by Christmas. . . and didn’t think the Metropolitan Police were up to stopping them.

Perhaps that explains what Devon & Cornwall Constabulary were doing in Waitrose car park in Okehampton in the middle of last week, kitted out in full riot gear, and role playing in and among the public. Nonetheless, if you are going to practice how to control food rioting, Waitrose seems an unlikely venue.

It is often the everyday that illustrates the story. My cab driver the other Saturday told me that late afternoon the day before he had spent 45 minutes looking for a fare. The problem, he averred, is that aren’t spending: or not the ones who would usually call a cab. It seems that M&S have had the same problem with selling food.

City living is not just good for the economy, but for the planet. From Matt Power in June ‘08 Wired,

A Manhattanite’s carbon footprint is 30 per cent smaller than the average American’s.

I thought of this reading Rural idyll or stuck in the back of beyond, by Rhymer Rigby in this morning’s FT.

From the June edition of Wired,

“What high-speed means of transportation emits less atmospheric carbon than trains, lanes, and automobiles?

The humble counterweight elevator put into service in 1857, which has made vertical density possible from Dubai to Taipei.”

An interesting article by the FT’s Economics Editor, Chris Giles, this morning in which he suggests that ‘the gap between action and sentiment puts the economy at a tipping point’.

Take surveys of households and companies at face value and the economy appears to be in free fall. Most measures of business confidence are sharply down on a year ago and the Gfk/NOP poll of consumers’ confidence about future economic prospects has declined to its lowest level since 1982.

But what households and companies are saying and what they are doing has rarely been so different. For all the misery poured out to pollsters, hard figures so far show people behaving as if they really believe Britain’s economy problems will be short and shallow.

Companies are not yet taking really tough decisions to cut costs. Instead they are keeping their workforce intact, presumably in the belief that it is better to hang on to employees in bad times because the good times will be with us again soon.

Good to know that swimming will soon be free for the over 60s. According to Andy Burnham, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport,

“Swimming has universal appeal for all ages and provides the opportunities for families to participate in healthy activity together. Our aim is to help as many areas as possible remove charges and provide some kind of free swimming proposition. All the evidence shows that it removes barriers to those who are inactive. It is for local authorities to decide just how far they want to go.”

Let’s hope that we don’t get fined if we don’t go swimming. The last thing I want to do is participate in healthy activity with anyone else!

One of the delights of being away from the office on holiday is the freedom it brings from the tyranny of the chargeable hour. Nonetheless I enjoyed Michael Skapinker’s column The jury is out on family life and the law in the FT on 22 April, in which he looked mainly at what he referred to as the 50:20 ’scandal’, that 50% of law graduates are women but only about 20% of partners are female, but which began with the fees we lawyers charge, following Mr Justice Floyd’s remarks in the BlackBerry case.

Selling time is not what we should be doing, and things are changing. How quickly is another matter. The problem is that it is considerably easier to sell time than value, and when I have argued the matter with my partners (most of whom are wedded to the chargeable hour), their usual reply is that if it works, why change it. The point they are missing is that either we will have to change, or clients will change us.

But back to 50:20. Skapinker makes good points

In accounting for the failure of women lawyers to advance to partnership, I think we can largely discount sexism as a factor. No doubt there are misogynistic lawyers, and others who secretly doubt whether women can hack it, but for firms to be engaging in widespread rampant, or even subtle, discrimination would make no sense.

First, the level of attrition among women lawyers is ruinously wasteful. The cost of turning graduates into proper lawyers is high, and the 50:20 figure suggests that well over half of the expensively trained female recruits are dropping out along the way. No profit-minded law firm (and, as the BlackBerry case demonstrates, lawyers are intensely profit-minded) would deliberately fritter away investment on this scale.

Second, if some law firms were discriminating against women, others would surely have the nous to snap up these highly capable discards.

Everyone knows what the real problem is: much of law, as practised at the highest level, is incompatible with family life. The pressure to bill for thousands of hours of work, so evident in the BlackBerry case, helps see to that.

But is this all?

Add to this Susan Pinker’s argument, set out in The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women, and the Real Gender Gap, that the workplace gender gap is not the result of discrimination but of differences in brain structure, hormones, motivation, empathy and risk aversion, and choice. It may not play well with the sisters, and the argument is controversial, but the question needs to be asked.