First Published: Tuesday 08 July 2008, 00:01
By Ken Livingstone
Ray Lewis was the only member of an ethnic minority appointed by Boris Johnson to the most senior level of his administration - it remains to be seen who will replace him. Due also to the resignation of the Deputy Chief of Staff James McGrath, and the row surrounding the elimination of anti-racism from the Rise Festival, considerable attention has been paid to Boris Johnson administration's attitude to London's ethnic minorities. Given that this is almost one third of Londoners this is obviously a major issue for the capital.
But equal attention has not been paid to similar developments concerning women. The elimination of women from the senior management levels in the Greater London Authority has been greater even than that for ethnic minorities and similar policies have been carried out down the line in the wider GLA Group.
Not a single one of Boris Johnson's appointments to the most senior positions in the GLA Group, that is those one level down from the Mayor the Chairs or Chief Executives of functional bodies (TfL, LDA, LFEPA), the statutory Deputy Mayor, or Directors/Deputy Mayor's has been a woman. (Director under the previous administration was equivalent, including in salary, to Deputy Mayor under Boris Johnson).
Five women occupied positions at the most senior level in the GLA group at the end of my administration Nicky Gavron, the Deputy Mayor; Val Shawcross, Chair of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA); Mary Reilly, Chair of the London Development Agency (LDA); Murziline Parchment, GLA Director of Strategic Projects and Performance, and Joy Johnson, GLA Director of Media and Marketing. All were replaced by Boris Johnson with men or, in the case of the Director of Strategic Projects and Performance, their post was simply abolished five senior women were dismissed and every single replacement was a man.
In mid-June a second wave of the removal of senior women began in most cases only one level down below the five most senior posts that had been held by women. This involved the removal of the mayoral advisers on Culture and Events, on Women, on Creative Industries, and on Planning. (This removal of senior women officials, incidentally, was accompanied by a deeply sexist description as 'Ken's wimmin'.)
The Sunday Times clearly did not notice the irony when it wrote, having failed to spot the prior removal of even more senior women officials: 'The manifesto pledge by new London mayor Boris Johnson to cut staff at the Greater London Authority is being fulfilled. Five senior posts held by women are to be axed in the mayor's office.'
This approach was then repeated down the system. Funding was cut off to the annual Capital Woman conference, attended by up to 2,000 people each year, to discuss the issues facing women in London in London. The Board of Safer Travel at Night, dealing with issues of safe travel for women, was suspended - with no indication whether it would be resumed. It may also be noted only 1 out of 11 in Tory group on the London Assembly is a woman.
Boris Johnson has attempted to point to the appointment of his adviser on culture who is a woman but this is absolutely not comparable to the five senior women replaced by men; it is only one appointment and three salary levels down in the GLA.
The position of women in the most senior positions of responsibility in the GLA has therefore been virtually eliminated, and at that most senior level it has been wholly eliminated in the Mayor's Office itself and at the level of heads of GLA functional bodies.
This lack of interest of Boris Johnson in the position of women in London had already been shown prior to the election. He was the only major candidate for Mayor not even to bother to reply to the Fawcett Society's questionnaire to the Mayoral candidates on their policies on women. Nor did he bother to produce any manifesto on his policies for women. As already noted, one of his first actions was to abolish the post of adviser to the Mayor on issues particularly affecting women. This is despite the fact, for example, that research by the Women in London's Economy programme, which I had supported as Mayor, brought out the striking fact that the gender pay gap in London has been the highest in any UK region requiring sustained emphasis to address this as well as many other issues facing women in London.
To make a comparison to the situation of ethnic minorities in the senior levels of the GLA, one person at the most senior level below the Mayor was appointed - Ray Lewis, Deputy Mayor for Young People and Opportunities, although he has now of course resigned. However three of the most senior positions in the GLA Group at the same level as Ray Lewis that is Chair or Chief Executive of functional bodies, deputy Mayor/Director level in the GLA had previously been held by members of ethnic minorities. These were the Chief Executive of the LDA, the GLA Director of Strategic Projects and Performance, and the Director for Equalities and Policing (a post which had been held by Lee Jasper, whose personal return would have been dependent on the outcome of an independent enquiry, but if he had not returned the post would have been retained and filled by someone from an ethnic minority in order to adequately deal with equalities).
Again an attempt has been made by Boris Johnson, as a piece of PR, to point to two other appointments from members of ethnic minorities - his advisers on transport and culture. But again this is entirely false as these are not in fact appointments at the most senior level the transport adviser is on the second rank in terms of salary and the culture adviser, as noted, is on the third rank.
Eliminating double counting, seven women and members of ethnic minorities have been eliminated from the most senior levels of the GLA Group and only one has been appointed. At the next level of seniority down four women and members of ethnic minorities have been eliminated and only two appointed. This is a huge shift against ethnic minorities and the almost total elimination of women, from the most senior ranks of the GLA. It shows to be farcical Andrew Gilligan's claim 'Johnson has assembled a senior team significantly more 'inclusive' and 'diverse' than anything Livingstone managed.'
What has in fact been carried out is one of the most complete purges of women from the senior levels of management ever seen in any administration with corresponding changes at other levels.
As stated earlier, attention is beginning to be paid to the attitude of Boris Johnson's administration to ethnic minorities and to poor people in London in particular around the elimination of half price bus travel for those on income support. But equal attention should be paid to what is happening to the position of women with this administration, as it is similarly drastic.
2. at 8:01 on Tuesday 8th July 2008, Helen wrote:
I am truly sickened by all this, especially after Boris's hypocritical back-pedalling in his speech before Pride. Boris's spin that appointing an adviser for Women's Issues "trivialises" it is both ludicrous and offensive. Capital Woman was a truly wonderful, inspiring event and will be sadly missed.
3. at 10:55 on Tuesday 8th July 2008, Sean wrote:
@Helen it's a wonder BoJo got through Pride without digging himself an even deeper hole.
First Capital Women is scrapped and then the State of London debate becomes a 2 hour posing platform. The guy can't bring himself to face Londoners on important issues because he dosen't have any answers.
4. at 14:15 on Tuesday 8th July 2008, Dave wrote:
"She's also pretty weak and was caught out implying LATES was a result of BoJo's administration."
Libel alert. 'Caught out' implies deception. What she actually said was that Boris was proud to announce the RETURN of Lates. Since the GLA funds Lates and Boris could have cut the money, he is entitled to announce that it is returning and his administration supports it.
Where is the deception?
5. at 15:36 on Tuesday 8th July 2008, Maggie wrote:
Ken
What did you expect from a party which sidelined Theresa May when Harriet Harman took PMQs?
6. at 22:46 on Tuesday 8th July 2008, Beth wrote:
This is terrible, why is london being taken backwards? Capital Woman was such a valuable resource, this is a sad time for London.
7. at 23:58 on Tuesday 8th July 2008, Rob wrote:
Ken raises a good point about the absence of women in the administration's most senior positions.
I'd also a shame that at the last election, none of the main parties fielded a women candidate for the most senior job of all. Hopefully Ken will support the adoption of a female candidate by Labour in 2012.
8. at 8:30 on Wednesday 9th July 2008, ed wrote:
FFS ken, give it up.... you got voted out - time to move on.
9. at 18:30 on Wednesday 9th July 2008, Damian Hockney wrote:
As a totally non-PC implacable opponent of targets etc, I have to say that the real effect of the lack of women at senior level is the impression it gives. It is not a good one. When the Tories selected their candidates for Assembly constituencies, there was not one woman chosen for a safe seat in all those on offer through retirement or planned advancement at Westminster. Does it matter? Yes it does. The former Mayor is right to raise it because even if you do not agree with any of the legal and institutional devices for increasing the numbers of women, failure to take seriously the issue creates a kind of Boy's Club impression. And this is bad for the Mayor and his administration.
10. at 19:23 on Thursday 10th July 2008, votedforken wrote:
In the light of this article it's surprising that there hasn't been more coverage of the amazing remarks by 'Colonel' Tim Parker, the new First Deputy Mayor, at the Assembly meeting this week.
He was asked by Murad Qureshi AM, "In the first wave of job losses here at the GLA in City Hall they have disproportionately affected women, more so than any others. Are you aware of that and what amends are you making?"
Instead of agreeing that there was a problem or committing himself to doing something, he said the following.
"Well all I would, let me sort of make a general point for you which is that - and maybe you will disagree with me but I'm trying to be open - is that when you go towards the top of an organisation people get paid more money. And for that money you expect them to have a narrower set of skills and therefore you make judgements about whether that person has the right set of skills to do the role.
When you go down the pyramid of an organisation you find there are many posts arguably where the set of skills is more open to a broader market. And I think it's much easier there to be, you know, if like you're not you can get a broad, because there are more people who can fill those posts. It's easier to be more equal as it were. The narrower you get towards the top of an organisation it actually gets tougher and tougher because the needs of the post have to be taken into account against the range of people available to fill the post. And sometimes as a result of that you will get a situation where there are more women leaving or more people from one group or another. But we are, you know, for me when you get to the top, the sole thing that we must focus on is having the right people for the right slots? And I hope that we can all agree that that's the right thing. And that the conclusion you draw is that you know that it doesn't reflect the mix of women is not that being anti-women."
And this guy's in charge! I'm surprised that it hasn't more coverage to be honest, especially after Ken's piece here.
11. at 10:42 on Saturday 12th July 2008, Chuck Unsworth wrote:
So Livingstone's position is that these people should be appointed on the basis that they are women? Is that sufficient grounds?
This is a poorly argued and inept political point. What Livingstone should be examining - apart from his own disasters - is the quality of appointee. But there's little chance of that from a man who appointed Lee Jasper and his own partner to some lucrative sinecures.
12. at 14:58 on Saturday 12th July 2008, angela wrote:
What is wrong in saying you have to have the right people for the right jobs? Any job should go to the best candidate, and whether they are male, female or have three heads is absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Giving women jobs just because they are women, is so patronising. It is like a woman cannot beat a man or get a job on her own merits. PATHETIC.
13. at 15:08 on Monday 14th July 2008, Dave wrote:
Ken,
Never fear, all this short sightedness will result in one thing. The absence of Women will result in testosterone males banging their ego's with each other as they jostle for the position of Mayor. Greed, selfishness and self-interest will be the downfall of this mayor. The lack of females means there will be no balance, no ying for the yang and as a result bad decisions will be made. Men are renowned for being bad listeners, poor communicators and not being able to see other view points different to their own.
Of course not all men are like this, but in politics, they very much are. It will cost London dearly, but I sincerely hope that the pain will be short lived as Londoners realise the folly of taking voting lightly and putting idiots in charge because they're funny!
14. at 13:27 on Friday 18th July 2008, TawkinSenz wrote:
votedforken - was that quote word for word?
I have noticed this phrase:
"It's easier to be more equal as it were"
....sounds very similar to:
"some animals are more equal than others"
....written on a wall by a pig.
Well, well, well, another Orwellian nightmare begins. These un-elected sharks are not working in the public interest.
15. at 12:08 on Monday 21st July 2008, votedforken wrote:
Angela wrote: 'What is wrong in saying you have to have the right people for the right jobs? Any job should go to the best candidate, and whether they are male, female or have three heads is absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever.'
The problem with this argument is that Angela is saying there are no talented or qualified women to work for this Tory mayor and that's fine. Yet Ken Livingstone had no problem in finding perfectly well-qualified women to serve at the highest level of his administration. It's simply untrue that there are no qualified women out there. Johnson and Parker are clearly not in the slightest bit interested in this issue however.
The fact that this is a genuine problem for the Johnson-Parker administration is shown by the fact that the issue won't go away - having been raised here by Ken and by the Labour group on the Assembly, it's been raised in the Guardian where Parker was forced to defend the indefensible. Now Dave Hill has taken it up on his website.
It is a shame that the elimination of women from the appointments made by the Mayor of London at the most senior level has not so far found its way into the wider media; but the fact that the issue continues to dog the Johnson-Parker mayoralty regardless shows that at the issue is very much alive.
16. at 7:57 on Tuesday 22nd July 2008, Helen wrote:
The appointment of Anthony Browne as Boris's Director For Spin leaves me in no doubt that Equal Opportunities are now considered to be Political Correctness Gone Mad. I expect to see future Mayor Of London events sponsored by The Daily Mail.
Please note: Your comment will not appear until it has been approved by a moderator. By posting a comment you agree to our terms and conditions. We do not allow the posting of comments containing HTML code and or external links.
1. at 0:54 on Tuesday 8th July 2008, Andy, Lewisham wrote:
'Boris Johnson has attempted to point to the appointment of his adviser on culture who is a woman '
She's also pretty weak and was caught out implying LATES was a result of BoJo's administration.