A Westborough councillor and his sloppy grasp of facts

What is diversity? At a meeting last night I listened to a contribution from a Westborough councillor where the claim was made that his ward was the most diverse in the borough. Now, this sort of statement always makes my ears prick up – if for no other reason than I like rigour when so-called facts are stated. My immediate thought was that I must check this out, and then it occurred to me that there are potentially many ways of describing diversity.

Since we all are unique it could be argued that each ward is equally diverse. However, rather than be deliberately abstruse I will stick to accepted definitions.

The first, and perhaps most obvious, measure is ethnicity. The ward with the lowest ‘white’ population could be taken as the most diverse (here on I will use data from the 2011 census), and Westborough does not come top in this.

84.0% Victoria
84.4% Westborough

Based on ethnic group Victoria is the most diverse ward.

Religion could also be used as an indicator. Taking ‘Christian’ as the norm, the lowest ‘Christian’ population could be construed as making that ward the most diverse.

48.2% Kursaal
49.8% Westborough

Based on religion Kursaal is the most diverse ward.

Another diversity indicator is language. Using ‘English’ as the norm the number of households where all people aged 16 and over in the household have English as a main language would be a fair measure of diversity.

85.9% Milton
88.7% Victoria
89.5% Westborough

Based on household language Milton is the most diverse ward.

Marriage is becoming less of a cultural norm, but it dominates many people’s waking thoughts. Using the number of married households as a measure perhaps describes a type of diversity.

27.9% Kursaal
27.9% Milton
30.0% Victoria
35.6% Westborough

Based on living arrangements Kursaal and Milton are the most diverse wards.

Perhaps the Westborough councillor has another measure he wishes to employ, but I suspect that he is just sloppy in his research. Westborough is not the most diverse ward in Southend-on-Sea, although it admittedly comes high in most measures. Kursaal, Victoria and Milton all have superior claims to the title of most diverse – and I am not about to award any ward that particular prize.

In the same meeting, as part of the same discussion, this same Westborough councillor made the rather astonishing statement that he thought that all parents and children should address each other using English. Whilst I think all should use English in wider communications, I think it no-one’s business what language is used amongst family members.

Age

One of the many things I campaign for is the lowering of the voting age. I wrote to my MP about this recently, and his reply indicated that he did not support my view.

David Amess added: “this is not a party political matter but I am against the reduction to 16”.

David is very aware of my politics and he regularly responds to my emails. Although I can and do complain about his politics, I cannot fault his assiduousness in this regard.

Votes at 16 does cut across the political spectrum, although I feel that there are more who are inclined to support this within Labour and Liberal Democrat ranks than amongst Conservatives. That being said, there are Conservatives who do campaign for all sorts of electoral reforms (see Conservative Action for Electoral Reform).

The age at which one can vote is 18 at the moment, and the age at which one can seek office is the same. Eighteen year olds can be councillors and Members of Parliament, and once in place can by extension have ministerial positions etc.

Cllr Ron Woodley strikes me as a pretty easy going fellow outside of the council chamber, but clearly has a bee in his bonnet regarding the portfolio holder for Children and Lifelong Learning on Southend-on-Sea Borough Council. Privately Cllr James Courtenay and I get along pretty well, but politically we are poles apart. I share much of Cllr Woodley’s concerns about education in the town.

My views about Cllr Courtenay’s unsuitability for his role have nothing to do with his age. I was in the chamber when Cllr Woodley labelled him a “child in charge of children’s learning” (reported here) and thought it not only rude, but had ruined what until then was a pretty decent set of remarks about the grammar schools in our town and how they seem serve the interests of those outside of the borough above those who reside within.

I am fifty-three, and in the eyes of some already past it. However, I hope to have a few more years of campaigning left in me, and would certainly hope that it is my ability that I am judged on and not my age.

Of course, age does have some influence on ability, but I would hope that we would see a good spread of ages in the chamber and in the Cabinet.

Cllr Woodley has some salient thoughts on education in Southend; I hope we do not see these lost in controversy because he cannot resist abusing his opponents.

Four facts

The reason I belong to, and campaign for, the Labour Party is because I am a socialist. I am a socialist because I believe in equality.

We do not have equality in Southend. Four facts that illustrate this:

• 29,716 of Southend people are living in the 20% most deprived Middle Super Output Areas in the country (ONS 2010 mid-year population estimate) -
• 1 in 4 children live in poverty
• Life expectancy in the most affluent area of Southend is 8.6 years more than the least affluent (All persons, 2007-09)
• Southend has more problem drug users, more drug related hospital stays and more drug related deaths than regional averages.

If, like me, you think this is wrong then you had better get campaigning.

The marriage debate, some accuracy please

The debate over gay marriage (a term which, at best, only partially describes what is wanted) often falls into dissecting the meaning of the word ‘marriage’.

Now, I do not subscribe to the ‘it is Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve’ argument, although I am sensitive to the views of those for whom same-sex marriage is a sin. However, much that is legal is a sin in someone else’s eyes – smoking, drinking, gambling, sex outside of marriage, and eating meat, to name but a few things.

So, what is marriage?

Dictionary.com has this:
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies

It also has this:
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender

Oxford Dictionairies has this:
the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

It also has this:
(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex

The Collins English Dictionary has this:

the state or relationship of living together in a legal partnership
the legal union or contract made by two people to live together

The Merriam-Webster has this:

a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

The Free Dictionary has this:

a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.

This is a random selection, and you get the picture. Marriage is defined as the union between a male and female, as well as the union between persons of the same sex. Let’s have some accuracy in the debate, please.

Group, Diwali, CAB

BAPS Shri Swaminarayam Mandir celebration

Another Labour Group meeting chaired by me this week; Cllr David Norman is recovering from an operation and is temporarily absent from council meetings. My attempt at a short and swift meeting singularly failed – we managed two and a half hours. Still, by the standard of some of the meetings I attend that was a short one.

Until recently I was unaware that my ward contained a Hindu temple. It is tucked away in a road with no residences, and so only infrequently visited by me. I was delighted to attend for a short time their Diwali celebrations. Whilst I am an atheist I do campaign for freedom of worship. I enjoyed a small sample of their food and was able to meet and discuss some issues concerning their community.

I recently became a member of the Southend-on-Sea Guild of Help and Citizens Advice Bureau. Their AGM was held this week and I was delighted to be invited to attend.

Tomorrow I am seeing my second architect in eight days regarding a planning application. I am also speaking with SKIPP about the central library. Sunday morning is game three of my football season: Leigh Ramblers versus Area Boys.

Women

It should be about who is the best person for the job, or so runs the argument against all-women shortlists.

The subject of gender parity and how to achieve is sometimes said to be a good argument starter in Labour gatherings, and my experience suggests nothing to the contrary. Often the most vehement in their opposition are those members and supporters who do not intend to stand, but who object to being told that they have to vote for a woman. Opposition is not limited to men either, as I have met many women who object to anything that looks like preferential treatment.

Roughly speaking, half the population of anywhere is female. Representative democracies should at least attempt to look like the populations that elect them. In terms of gender this is a big fail here in the UK.

I have been involved in the grassroots organisation of local Labour parties almost from joining in 1996. I have a variety of roles, and these have enabled me to have first-hand experience of activism and those thus engaged. My experience does tell me that far fewer women engage in politics than men, and if activism rather than membership is looked at then the proportion of females shrinks even further. The argument than women are just not interested superficially looks correct.

I do not entirely agree with Jack Monroe that politics is sexist; politicians (certainly the left of centre ones anyway) do actively seek to engage women. However, the wider cultural world that politics inhabits is sexist. This is changing, but progress is slow.

Men and women are different and equality is not about trying to make them otherwise. Equality is about access and opportunity. It is also to some extent about engagement, role models and trail-blazing.

Gender-biased selection exists to rectify the institutionalised bias that exists. It is not a perfect solution, and it should only be temporary, but I really cannot see how we achieve greater female representation in our elected bodies otherwise. I accept that it smacks of tokenism; I accept that ambitious women appear to have an advantage. Even despite Labour’s desire to push woman forward there are still more men than women involved and elected as far as I can see, which suggests that if we removed AWS and gender parity rules the situation would be skewed even more in favour of men.

In terms of practical politics there is no other way to achieve a fairer democracy. Waiting for societal changes to redress the balance will mean waiting a long time. Men should not worry, though, for at present there is more than what should be their fair share of seats and posts available to them, and if you think they are missing out because of AWS then spare a thought for all those women put off from even putting a toe near the first rung of the political ladder.

Bending, not breaking

Unlike Matthew S. Dent I am not a Christian. I am a life-long atheist (so far, anyway). My moral compass has no theological underpinning – I do what I think is right, and will change course and views in the light of experience.

My Laboratory Of Life approach is somewhat at odds with anyone who attempts to use a 2000 year old book as a lifestyle manual. Perhaps that is where some religions get it wrong – there is no version two of the Bible, Qu’ran, Torah, etc.

Anyway, I have no wish to commit heresy; only to right some wrongs. Matthew S. Dent (what does that ‘S’ stand for – superb?) has written rather well on the subject of gay marriage. I support gay marriage, or to put it correctly, marriage between persons of the same gender. I have a few, rather abstruse, thoughts to add to the debate.

Firstly, marriage between two people of the same gender is not necessarily gay marriage. Sex and marriage do not have to go together, and although non-consummation may be grounds for divorce, it is not compulsory.

Gays can already marry. A gay man can marry a gay woman, and there are examples of this already.

Marriage is not the only vehicle for procreation. Many couples marry and are content to be childless, and many children are born outside of marriage (nearly half nowadays). Besides, gay couples can and do have children. They can adopt, be inseminated, or bring children from previous relationships.

What of the heterosexual couples where one partner (or even both) subsequently come out, or have gender re-assignment surgery? They can (and often do) remained married.

Does the legalising of marriage between same sex couples diminish the institution? It certainly changes it, I accept that. But let’s get real – modern marriage is already a changed beast from days of old. Gender equality and the de-stigmatisation of bastardy have already cut swathes into it. Divorce, second and subsequent marriages – all have changed the institution we call marriage. Singletons, one-parent families, children, wonderful children, brought into the world with the assistance of science – all this has also meant that marriage is now altered, forever.

I think marriage needs equalising for it to survive. Those who cling to fundamental religiosity are an increasingly small minority. Like it or not, the world is changing. Marriage has to move with it – adapt to survive. No-one is intent on forcing gay marriage onto any religious body, and they should stop forcing their agenda on everyone else.