Letters From A Tory

Dear Civil Service,

As a huge employer in this country, I would think that many private sector firms would look to you as a standard-bearer for public sector employment.  However, it seems to me that you are not really as high and mighty as you might think.  There I was, looking through a new job advert yesterday, when I came across this little passage under the Disability information section of the application pack:

“We operate a Guaranteed Interview Scheme for disabled people (as defined by the Disability and Discrimination Act 1995) that meet the minimum criteria for this appointment”

You do what?!?! You give everyone who has a disability an interview, as long as they meet the minimum requirements for the post (having a 2:2 degree from any university)? That’s outrageous!  I read Tony Sharp’s recent expose of public sector discrimination with horror a couple of days back, when I thought that forcing people to disclose their sexuality on application forms was as bad as it gets - clearly I was wrong there.  Why on earth should people with disabilities be guaranteed an interview?  That is discrimination of the worst kind.  What happened to the government fighting for equality in employment?  This is about as unequal as it can possibly get.

In complete disbelief,

A.Tory

After reading a couple of days ago that men are apparently worried about feeling less masculine with the increasing role of females in society, it would have been nice to see some stories empowering men and demonstrating the key role that we play in society - which is why I was a little disappointed to READ THIS.

Dear Trevor Phillips,

I know that in the field of equality, you are seen as a major force.  Politicians listen to you and try to bring you into policy debates due to your experience, but yet again you and your equality buddies have crossed the line by threatening to prosecute innocent people on the grounds that they don’t do enough to help ‘disadvantaged groups’.

Having inspections teams carry out ’spot checks’ on companies to make sure they are obeying with discrimination laws is simply not acceptable.  If you have evidence that a firm is breaching their obligations then fair enough, but why should these inspectors be able to walk into any company and demand their employment records, even in the complete absence of any suggestion that they are breaking the law?  It is also outrageous that public sector bodies should have to produce ‘equality reports’ showing that they are employing enough people from disadvantage groups.  What if people from these supposedly disadvantaged groups aren’t good enough for the jobs, or haven’t got enough qualifications?  What then?  Are big city firms going to have to employ disabled people or those from ethnic minorities just for the sake of it?  Is the public sector going to be forced to employ these people or faced criminal charges?  And as if that wasn’t bad enough, you’re going to publish league tables of who doesn’t employ enough ‘disadvantaged’ people, totally irrespective of the line of work, economic sector or company profile.

In case you hadn’t realised, stupid legislation like this only makes it harder for the UK to become the meritocracy that it should be, and it’s people like you that make damn sure that the most disadvantaged people in this country are still the white, middle-class, British males.

Yours in despair,

A.Tory

Sometimes I feel that the issue of ‘equality’ is a very grey area.  Guaranteeing everyone a level playing field in life, regardless of age, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or religion is very hard to achieve.  However, there are some occasions where I think it’s fair to say that discrimination is rather hard to justify.

Dear Devil’s Kitchen,

As a regular reader of your blog I am fairly used to the colourful language that you use.  However, your description of the unbelievably stupid remarks by Dr Rowan Williams about Sharia Law was the first time when I’ve actually felt like using the same language as you.

Like everyone else, I’m used to him making pointless remarks about domestic and international affairs but he really has topped himself this time.  Allowing Muslims to be treated differently by the courts, regardless of the case details, would be a huge travesty for this country and a serious assault on British values.  For him to say that he thinks it is “a bit of a danger” that “there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts” shows how little he represents the views of this country, let alone other Christians - which is why I can understand the speed at which you flew off the wall in your blog post.

Will Dr Williams finally be booted out of his job and replaced by a more sensible, rational figure?  Who knows.  I have a sneaking suspicion I know what your view on his resignation would be, though….

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

Dear Alice Thomson,

Thank you for an excellent opinion piece in today’s Telegraph.  The Queen’s speech gave away little about whether Gordon Brown actually has a ‘vision’ for this country.  In particular, the proposal to introduce more flexible working time for women may not be as grand a plan as it might seem.

One of the fundamental problems in women seeking ‘equality’ is that they wish to be treated the same as men.  That may sound like an odd statement and yet I believe that many people fail to realise how self-defeating this objective is.  Let’s take parental leave, for example.  Women receive approximately 6-12 months maternity leave, depending on their career, whereas men receive two weeks - yes, two weeks.  If women really wanted equality, the only logical solution is either to increase paternity leave to 6-12 months (which would severely damage businesses) or to cut maternity leave to two weeks (which would be incredibly unpopular amongst women).  Equality in this instance would be extremely unwise.

Your point about extending flexible hours hits a similar snag.  If women have a strong desire to be seen as equal to men, they must be treated the same by employers.  Following this train of thought, why would an employer take on significant numbers of employees who can pretty much choose if/when they turn up to work once they have children?  In my opinion, they’d be stupid to.  If equality is so desired, then surely flexible working time should be cut, not expanded.  Now I’m not saying that is the right action to take.  However, if ‘equality’ is to be implemented then women would undoubtedly be the biggest losers and our businesses, as you rightly pointed out, will pick up an enormous tab.

As I said in the ‘Why I write this blog’ section, men and women are not equal.  We are physically and psychologically different and will always be different, so let’s start asking ourselves what is best for society and stop trying to chase this ridiculous notion of treating men and women exactly the same.

With respect,

A.Tory