Campaign for Merit in Business – let’s get political

[Updated 28 February 2013]

The Electoral Commission has just registered our political party, Justice for men & boys (and the women who love them). More on this later in this post.

Campaign for Merit in Business, which was launched early in 2012, has made a remarkable impact in a relatively short time. We’ve proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the ‘glass ceiling’ is a baseless conspiracy theory. Through exposing as fantasies, lies, delusions and myths, the arguments which said that increasing gender diversity in the boardroom (‘GDITB’) will improve corporate financial performance, we’ve destroyed the long-vaunted ‘business case’ for GDITB. We continue to publicise five longitudinal studies, all of which show that GDITB leads to declines in corporate financial performance. What else would we expect when businesses aren’t free to select the best people for their boards, regardless of gender? Proponents are left with little other than misrepresenting correlation as causation in pursuit of their social engineering programmes.

The Conservative-led coalition no longer challenges our assertion that the impact of GDITB on UK plc will inevitably be a negative one. And yet it continues to actively pursue GDITB. DBIS continues to refuse to have a minister meet with us. What might explain this extraordinary state of affairs? We believe there are a number of strands in the answer:

1. David Cameron has an exaggerated fear of the ‘women’s vote’. He showed his feminist-friendly credentials soon after coming to power in 2010 by appointing the Labour peer Lord Davies of Abersoch to report not on whether to give effect to GDITB, but on how to do so. Indeed he showed those credentials in the autumn of 2009, when he announced he was setting up some all-women prospective parliamentary candidate (‘PPC’) shortlists. I’d once worked for the party at their London HQ (2006-8) but resigned my party membership in the autumn of 2009 when David Cameron announced his willingness to introduce all-women PPC shortlists for the forthcoming general election. I was later informed, by a senior officer in the party, that I was far from alone in having done so.

2. The leading minister at DBIS, the Lib Dem MP Vince Cable, holds extreme left-wing views, and is on record as saying that if he were Prime Minister, 50% of his cabinet would be women. He has publicly used – in his speeches and writings – utterly discredited research ‘evidence’ in support of GDITB.

3. The CBI, which should be defending its members’ rights to appoint directors as they see fit, is a part of the problem. For some years it’s actively promoted GDITB. Its current President, Sir Roger Carr (chairman of Centrica) is on record as stating that while he doesn’t personally believe GDITB improves corporate financial performance, he thinks it improves meeting ‘atmospherics’.

4. GDITB is being pursued vigorously because FTSE100 companies are under threat of legislated quotas (Davies Report – 2011) if they don’t ‘voluntarily’ achieve 25% female representation on their boards by 2015. This has resulted in a more than fourfold increase in FTSE100 female director appointments, from 12% of new appointments before the quotas threat (2010) to 55% (2012). Virtually all of the new female appointments have been as NEDs, an indicator of how shallow the available pool of qualified women is compared with the available pool of qualified men.

5. For some years government inquiries into such matters, while seeming to be open, have been deeply flawed. The most obvious recent example was the 2012 House of Lords inquiry into ‘Women on Boards’ which heard only from witnesses in support of GDITB. Many were professionally involved in the initiative. The level of witness challenging by the peers, including the Conservatives, was embarrassing to watch. In our written evidence to the inquiry we included details of four longitudinal studies which show that GDITB harms corporate performance. The final inquiry report explicitly rejected the idea that GDITB can lead to declines in corporate performance, without explaining why. We wrote to the inquiry’s chairwoman, Conservative peer Baroness O’Cathain, asking for an explanation, and didn’t receive one.

6. The House of Commons inquiry into ‘Women in the Workplace’, to which we gave oral evidence, is still ongoing, and we’re hopeful of more attention being given to our evidence than was the case with the House of Lords inquiry. But virtually all the witnesses before this inquiry, as with the House of Lords inquiry, have been pro-GDITB. We’ve made formal complaints about the misleading testimonies of a number of ‘witnesses’, one of whom amended her evidence as a result.

[New entry, 22 July 2013: The report of a House of Commons inquiry – ‘Women in the Workplace’ – was outrageous in its curt dismissal of our evidence base and arguments, and those of the renowned sociologist Catherine Hakim. The committee blindly accepted feminist arguments in relation to the genders in the workplace, while traditional Conservative perspectives on issues such as meritocracy were nowhere to be seen. Our critique of the report is here.]

The area of GDITB is but one of many areas in which governments actively discriminate for women and against men, because they’re fearful of the potential impact of ‘women’s votes’. Let’s consider just one example of that discrimination. Two-thirds of public sector workers are women, and the Equality Act (2010) effectively enables public sector bodies to discriminate on the grounds of gender in terms of recruitment and promotion, where one gender is ‘under-represented’. In practise only women in the sector are using the legislation, and only to advance women. Positive discrimination on gender grounds is illegal, so the government terms the phenomenon ‘positive action’. It amounts to exactly the same thing in practice.

Men have signally failed to co-operate effectively to defend ‘men’s human rights’ over many years, but this is changing. Politicians of all parties have left us with no choice. We’ve taken the only logical step. We’ve formed a political party to challenge the government in numerous policy areas – including GDITB – where there’s relentless special treatment for women at the expense of men. I shall lead the party.

On 30 December the leading broadcaster and Daily Mail columnist Quentin Letts exclusively revealed our intention to launch the party.

The name of the party was revealed in an article published by the world’s most-visited and influential men’s human rights advocacy website, A Voice for Men.

If you believe in this cause, then please support us by making a donation or possibly by making a contribution in other ways. A qualified accountant has taken care of finances both before and since the party’s establishment. 100% of donations will be used to finance our campaigning work. Nobody associated with this campaign or our party derives any personal income from donations. Thank you for your interest in our work.

Mike Buchanan

07967 026163

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Mike Buchanan’s written submissions to House of Commons and House of Lords inquiries in 2012, and a remarkable admission by Professor Susan Vinnicombe

In 2012, the year before the launch of J4MB, I sent written submissions to a House of Commons inquiry, ‘Women in the Workplace’ – here (35 pages) – and a House of Lords inquiry, ‘Women on Boards’, here (3 pages).

Susan Vinnicombe, a British ‘professor’, has been for many years the leading academic proponent of ‘more women on boards’ in the world. She made a remarkable admission to the same House of Lords inquiry, when giving oral evidence. Her exchange with Lord Fearn (I’ve put in bold text, the most relevant section):

Lord Fearn: Is there a strong business case for improving the gender diversity of boards? If so, does it follow that there is also a strong business case for increased gender diversity on boards across the EU?

Professor Susan Vinnicombe: Yes. We believe that there is a very strong, compelling and comprehensive business case for gender diversity on boards, and it is a case which stands not only in the UK but across the EU and indeed globally. It sits on several broad platforms.

One is talent management. In all the developing countries of the world, 60% of the graduates are now women. We have a tremendous number of women coming in at graduate level to our big corporates. So the fact that we are seeing so few women at the top on our corporate boards is a sheer waste of talent. Talent management would be our first point concerning the business case.

Secondly, if corporates are to serve their markets well, it just makes sense that they need to be able to represent those markets. In many of the markets, women are the consumers, so it makes very good business sense to have women on the corporate boards of those companies.

Thirdly, there has been quite a push in the past – indeed, we ourselves have engaged in such research – to look at the relationship between having women on corporate boards and financial performance. We do not subscribe to this research. We have shared it with chairmen and they do not think that it makes sense. We agree that it does not make sense. You cannot correlate two or three women on a massive corporate board with a return on investment, return on equity, turnover or profits. We have dropped such research in the past five years and I am pleased to say that Catalyst, which claims to have done a ground-breaking study on this in the US, officially dropped this line of argument last September.

However, there are broader, non-financial performance indicators, such as corporate social responsibility, employee involvement, innovation, philanthropy and good communications, which have been seen to be connected to companies that have women on their boards.

The original blog piece on Susan Vinnicombe’s admission is here.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

House of Commons: Business, Innovation and Skills Committee inquiry into ‘corporate governance’

In 2012 – a year before the launch of J4MB – we launched Campaign for Merit in Business (‘C4MB’). C4MB was then, and remains to this day, the only organization in the world campaigning against government initiatives to bully companies into increasing the proportion of women on their boards, primarily for two reasons:

  • the initiatives are deeply anti-meritocratic; and
  • evidence clearly shows a causal link between increasing female representation on boards, and corporate financial decline (link below)

In 2012 I presented written evidence to House of Commons and House of Lords inquiries. Along with the renowned sociologist Dr Catherine Hakim (the originator of Preference Theory, in 2000) and Steve Moxon (author of The Woman Racket, published in 2008) I gave oral evidence to the House of Commons inquiry on 20 November 2012, four years ago to the day – here (video, 56:49).

I presented some of the evidence of a causal link between increasing female representation on boards, and corporate financial decline – five longitudinal studies – to both inquiries. The MPs and peers didn’t dispute the evidence, had no counter-evidence (many witnesses to the inquiry were mis-representing correlation as causation, as they do to this day) but pressed on regardless with the government’s bullying of large companies to ‘improve’ gender diversity on their boards, through the threat of legislated gender quotas.

The government’s bullying of FTSE100 companies to appoint more women to their boards – starting with the publication of the ridiculous Davies Report (2011) – led to FTSE100 companies doubling the proportion of women on their boards between 2011 (12%) and 2015 (25%). 96% of the new female director appointments over the period were as non-executive directors, giving the lie to feminist claims of a ‘glass ceiling’ keeping able women out of boardrooms.

Today the government is driving FTSE350 companies to have gender parity (50/50) on their boards. To their eternal shame the business sector – along with the CBI and Institute of Directors – have been complicit in this feminist-driven social engineering exercise. I cannot recall one FTSE350 director ever publicly criticising the initiatives.

As a result of frustration at the government’s refusal to engage with rational arguments, I launched J4MB in early 2013, and I’ve devoted little time and effort on C4MB since then. The government’s refusal to engage with rational arguments is, of course, apparent in other areas relating to state actions and inactions concerning men (and boys) and women (and girls).

It is with a heavy heart, then, and a deadline of 26 October, just six days away, that I’ve started work on our written submission for the new inquiry, having put it off for some weeks. The scope of the inquiry:

The Business, Innovation, and Skills (BIS) Committee has today launched an inquiry on corporate governance, focussing on executive pay, directors duties, and the composition of boardrooms, including worker representation and gender balance in executive positions. [my emphasis]

The BIS Committee inquiry follows on from the corporate governance failings highlighted by the Committee’s recent inquiries into BHS and Sports Direct, and in the wake of commitments from the Prime Minister to overhaul corporate governance. [my emphasis]

We knew it wouldn’t be long before Theresa ‘this is what a feminist looks like’ May reinvigorated the ‘women on boards’ initiative. The inquiry’s terms of reference include the following ones relevant to ‘composition of boards’:

  • What evidence is there that more diverse company boards perform better? [Answer: none, at least with regards to gender. The only evidence of a causal link is that when more women are appointed to corporate boards, financial performance declines. ]
  • How should greater diversity of board membership be achieved? What should diversity include, e.g. gender, ethnicity, age, sexuality, disability, experience, socio-economic background? [The assumption is that greater diversity should be increased, when to my knowledge no evidence supports the assumption, at least with regards to gender. And it is only the gender issue which will achieve traction, because it’s women who have historically and shamelessly pursued self-advancement onto corporate boards.]
  • What more should be done to increase the number of women in Executive positions on boards? [Again, the assumption that ‘something should be done’, only ‘what’ should be done being up for debate. The obvious answer to the rhetorical question – to increase the number of women in Executive positions on boards, more women will need to work harder in the relevant disciplines e.g. Finance – isn’t even considered as an option.]

Extracts from the same web page:

Chair of the BIS committee, Iain Wright MP, (L, Hartlepool) said:

“…The Prime Minister has spoken of workers representation on boards. We want to examine what this might look like in practice, how would this work, how would workers be selected? It’s all too clear that there is significant under-representation of women in executive levels. We’re interested in hearing about the barriers to women achieving senior positions, the measures being taken to remedy the situation, and what action Government might take to improve the gender balance.

Simon Walker, Director General of the Institute of Directors, said:

“The UK has long been a leader in promoting high standards of governance, with our Corporate Governance Code being copied across the world. But the reputation of corporate Britain has not recovered from the financial crisis, and there are important questions that need to be addressed on issues including transparency, executive pay and board diversity. The Prime Minister has made clear that company boards are in her sights, so directors must fully engage in this debate.” [my emphasis]

Inquiry background

Composition of boards

Following the Davies Review, which successfully focussed on increasing the number of non-executive directors, [note: this is a naked mis-representation of what happened. At no time was it ever stated that the objective was to increase the number of female non-executive directors. This is a post-hoc rationalisation of the fact that virtually all the female director appointments were as non-executives, such was the shortage of suitably able women for executive positions] the BIS Committee wants to examine what more should be done to increase the number of women in executive positions… The inquiry also wants to consider how greater diversity of board membership could be achieved.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Where are all the expat women?

Why are a minority of British executives who take up positions abroad with their companies women? Obvious reasons include:

  • A minority of British executives are women
  • Work orientation. As a class, women are less career-oriented than men (Dr Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000) – 4 in 7 British men are work-centred, only 1 in 7 British women is)
  • Hypergamy. Women seek to marry men who are substantially better-off than themselves, and this tendency increases as a woman’s personal wealth rises. The women who might be candidates for working abroad will therefore tend to have high-earning partners who would naturally be reluctant (or unable) to relocate abroad. The same would be less frequently true for male executives
  • Family responsibilities. If one person in a couple is to remain in the UK with the children, and the other work abroad, most women would prefer the first role to the second

None of this makes sense to work-centred feminists, of course, so I thank Martin for this piece of absurd feminist propaganda from the BBC. An extract:

“Women are just as likely to accept offers to work abroad, but they are simply less likely to be offered the opportunity to take on these roles” by their firms, says Cynthia Emrich, a vice president at Catalyst, a New York-based global nonprofit that promotes women in the workplace.

Only about 17% of women take international assignments compared to 28% of men, according to a 2012 report from Catalyst that studied high-potential employees from top business schools. Despite having the same willingness to take on a global role as their male counterparts, 64% of women say they were never offered a move abroad, compared with just 55% of men, the report showed.

Even if we take the data at face value, it simply doesn’t support the claim that ‘women are just as likely to accept offers to work abroad, but they are simply less likely to be offered the opportunity to take on these roles’. A majority of executives (64% of women, ‘just’ 55% of men) were never offered a move abroad, yet 17% of women took up the opportunity, compared with 28% of men. Surely this shows that women are less likely than men to accept the offers, as we’d expect to be the case?

Catalyst is a radical feminist campaign organization, whose ‘Bottom Line’ series of reports are used by those seeking to misrepresent correlation as causation with respect to the link between gender balance on corporate boards and financial performance.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

It pays to have more women in work, so policy must reflect this. Er… must it?

In today’s edition of The Times (p.39) there’s a woeful article by Philip Aldrick, Economics Editor, titled, ‘It pays to have more women in work, so policy must reflect this’. His analysis is feminist throughout, though I doubt he realises this. A particular gem:

Women are good for the bottom line. Companies with more women in senior management deliver higher returns on assets. No economist has taken a stab at the reason, but the evidence, most recently from IMF research into two million companies across 34 European countries, is simply that it does. More profits means more cash to invest, which means higher productivity and better prosperity for all.

I honestly cannot be bothered to check out the ‘IMF research’, because I’m 100% sure – after working on this issue for 4+ years – that it would report a correllation between more women in senior management, and higher returns. What it would NOT demonstrate – no research ever does – is a causal link, because it’s been known for years that a causal link exists between more women in senior positions, and corporate financial decline. I outlined the evidence of a causal link to House of Commons and House of Lords inquiries in 2012, and that evidence is here.

If any of this blog’s followers has more energy and time than myself to direct Philip Aldrick to this blog piece, I thank them warmly in advance. His email address might be Then again, it might not be. I could be wrong. It happened once before.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

EasyJet is offering 10 places for women each year on the easyJet pilot training programme and underwriting the £100,000 training loan. This is the ‘first phase’ of their long term strategy to increase the proportion of female pilots at the airline.

Few of our blog pieces about education and workplace-related issues have angered our supporters than one we posted in 2014 – here – about female Brunel University MSc Engineering students being handed a taxpayer-stolen lump sum of £22,750 denied to their male colleagues.

Social engineering in the public sector has long been rife, but it’s becoming increasingly common in the private sector, too, and not just ‘women in the boardroom’. The objective is to deny men advancement, or even stop them starting careers in well-paying professions.

Carolyn McCall is the CEO of the low-cost airline easyJet. She became the CEO of Guardian Media Group in 2006, after rising to be CEO of Guardian Newspapers Ltd.

My thanks to Nigel for sending me this:

Dear Mike,

I’ve forwarded the link below as it gives a list of examples of major firms actions on gender (of course no help to men!) Easy Jet are offering 10 places to women  on their pilot course at effectively their expense [note: more accurately, at their shareholders’ expense] if the pilot candidate (woman) doesn’t go on to be a working pilot. If you look at the other examples you will see similar as well as the usual Family Friendly, Mentoring training into management and other privileges.

I realise that you will be mad busy at the moment but I think this information of the case studies is worth having a good trawl through. I would think it will also interest members working in the various companies/industries.


The link will take you to a piece by the absurdly-named Government Equalities Office. The link to the piece on easyJet is here.

As a final comment, male unemployment has long been higher than female unemployment, and unemployment has long been known to be a bigger suicide risk factor for men than women. The cost of these social engineering programmes is paid in many ways, including men’s lives. Suicide continues to be the #1 cause of death for men under 50 in the UK.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

We must do more for women entrepreneurs

A truly pathetic article from a recent Mail on Sunday. An extract:

A report from the Federation of Small Businesses last week argued that while women-led firms face many of the same challenges that all small businesses encounter, ‘there appear to be issues which are more acute for women business owners’.

Its survey of more than 1,900 women business owners found key challenges included balancing work and family life, achieving credibility for the business, and a lack of confidence.

One of the comments hits the nail on the head:

Why must we do more for women entrepreneurs? Who is the ‘we’? If people can’t do it for themselves, men or women, they are not entrepreneurs.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How to set up a small business. Take a big one and stuff its board with women.

My thanks to The Conservative Woman for publishing my latest article on the topic of gender diversity on corporate boards, inspired by a lengthy and absurd EHRC report, nothing less than a taxpayer-funded feminist propaganda piece.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments