Our thanks to Ray for this. Ms Reeves is a blithering idiot, and the “chair” of the Business Committee. I really must send her the evidence of a causal link between increasing the proportion of women on boards, and corporate financial decline. I’m sure she’d evaluate the evidence dispassionately.
It’s illuminating to observe how often feminists such as Ms Reeves are “truly staggered” by meritocracy. The start of the BBC piece – by a woman – emphasis ours:
The Treasury’s failure to appoint a woman to the Bank of England’s rate-setting committee is “truly staggering”, the chair of the Business Committee said.
Rachel Reeves made the comment in response to Prof Jonathan Haskel’s appointment to the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC).
Prof Haskel’s appointment means there is still only one woman on the MPC. [J4MB: Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.]
The Treasury said the role had been awarded on merit.
The department insisted it was “committed to diversity and encouraging the broadest range of candidates”.
It had “actively contacted” 44 women and 43 men to apply for the role. [J4MB: More women than men. Why, given that most senior economists are men? Clearly positive discrimination in action, the calibre of the women on average must logically have been somewhat – probably considerably – poorer than the quality of the men on average.]
Of those, 19 men and eight women applied [J4MB: Men more than twice as likely as women to apply] and four women and one man were shortlisted. [J4MB: So four out of eight women made it to the shortlist (50%) and only one man out of 19 (5%). That 10x differential IS “truly staggering”.] It also pointed out that two of the three people on the interview panel were women. [J4MB: Hmm, might this possibly… this will sound crazy, but bear with me… be a shameless attempt to ensure a woman got selected, regardless of the merit of the best candidate for the job? Prof Haskel must be so much more expert than the four women, that appointing one of the women would have made the Bank of England even more of a laughing stock among economists, than it already is.]
“The final appointment decision was based on merit,” it said. [J4MB: Well, at least we can all – other than feminists – agree on that. Prof Haskel landed the job despite the most outrageous and “truly staggering” recruitment process.]